Antibiotics show free market failure

[MrJonno]

Adapt and survive is not really evolution anyway, even if it was a good idea to apply to society.

More like its ensure your genes survive in your kids OR you relatives long enough to reproduce. Your personal survival beyond that is completely irrelevant to society.

It's one of the reasons humanity will never evolve to resistant to most common day cancers as on the whole you have already reproduced before they kill you.

As Seth has no children , and I suspect his relatives wouldn't allow any to go near their children he has zero fitness and is biologically a waste of time.

Of course neither do I but my ability to survive comes from the society not my personal biology

[Seth]

Thus, a "free market" does not mean an unregulated market.

Contradiction. Who does the regulating, and who decides on the regulations?

Sorry, I should have said "unpoliced." And either the government or the individuals involved may do the policing but government limits itself to policing force or fraud. In a proper Libertarian society, the community itself polices such conduct by shunning and excluding from trade those who engage in force or fraud.

[Seth]

Adapt and survive is not really evolution anyway, even if it was a good idea to apply to society.

More like its ensure your genes survive in your kids OR you relatives long enough to reproduce. Your personal survival beyond that is completely irrelevant to society.

It's one of the reasons humanity will never evolve to resistant to most common day cancers as on the whole you have already reproduced before they kill you.

As Seth has no children , and I suspect his relatives wouldn't allow any to go near their children he has zero fitness and is biologically a waste of time.

Of course neither do I but my ability to survive comes from the society not my personal biology

Go fuck yourself you brown stain on the shorts of society. May society wash it's self free of your stain soon.

[Seth]

Liberals own guns too in your nutjob society.

Not really. Some hypocritically do (like Nancy Pelosi) but most fall in the same self-eliminating category as the non-reproducing Econuts, and have the same unlikely expectation of survival in any crisis situation as MrJonno.

[rainbow]

Thus, a "free market" does not mean an unregulated market.

Contradiction. Who does the regulating, and who decides on the regulations?

Sorry, I should have said "unpoliced." And either the government or the individuals involved may do the policing but government limits itself to policing force or fraud. In a proper Libertarian society, the community itself polices such conduct by shunning and excluding from trade those who engage in force or fraud.

Mob justice, then.

...could work, I suppose.

[Seth]

Thus, a "free market" does not mean an unregulated market.

Contradiction. Who does the regulating, and who decides on the regulations?

Sorry, I should have said "unpoliced." And either the government or the individuals involved may do the policing but government limits itself to policing force or fraud. In a proper Libertarian society, the community itself polices such conduct by shunning and excluding from trade those who engage in force or fraud.

Mob justice, then.

...could work, I suppose.

We prefer the term "self help" or "self defense" in most circumstances. Fraud does not generally justify the use of force, where as force justifies the use of force in self defense, although not as retribution or punishment, which would be an initiation of force. The primary form of justice in a Libertarian society is social ostracism. If you cheat members of your community, then the community bands together to deny you the perks and benefits of community by refusing to trade with you, serve you, allow you to use community-owned resources or even communicate with you. Such shunning is a powerful force for behavior modification, but like anything is not 100 percent effective in bringing a malefactor into the community fold once again.

A police force or government is little more than a designated agent for the community appointed to those tasks by community consensus and funded by voluntary donations by those who find value in the services provided. Those who do not choose to participate in funding those services may not make use of them because that would constitute fraud...unless those who do fund the service voluntarily agree to make that service or benefit available to all, whether they contribute or not. This means, for example, that in the event of a contagious disease, altruistic and charitable members of the community can agree to fund a vaccination and health program for the poor or those who do not wish to pay themselves as a matter of enlightened self interest because having unvaccinated people in the community constitutes a collective risk that needs to be controlled. The fundamental difference of Libertarianism is that the government cannot compel anyone to participate financially or physically in any collective program or service, it must persuade them to do so voluntarily by presenting a rational and convincing case of why it is in the best interests of all individuals to participate.

[Blind groper]

Seth

What you fail to realise is that everyone interprets the "self help" or "self justice" principle differently. That means that your idea is not what actually results.

The USA right now has a vigilante justice mentality (your self help in operation), and this means heaps of people carrying hidden guns. Since so many of those people have their own interpretation of what justice means, a large number simply become murderers. A drug pusher dispenses his version of justice against his competitors. One guy arguing vehemently with another pulls out a gun and shoots the other dead (according to FBI, this kills 4,000 Americans each year). A man who thinks his wife might be cheating on him applies his version of justice and she is murdered.

The libertarian "self help" approach has no consistency, since everyone thinks differently, and the USA ends up with 5 times the per capita murder rate of my country, which has a lot fewer guns and no vigilante mentality.

[Seth]

Seth

What you fail to realise is that everyone interprets the "self help" or "self justice" principle differently.

As they should. So long as they do not initiate force or fraud in attempting to recompense a wrong done to them they are the best judge of how much they have been harmed. This leads others to treat and trade honestly and carefully so as to avoid initiating force or fraud on another.

That means that your idea is not what actually results.

In the long run it does.

The USA right now has a vigilante justice mentality (your self help in operation), and this means heaps of people carrying hidden guns.

Poppycock. You simply refuse to acknowledge the distinction between "vigilante justice" and "self defense" or "vigilance." People who carry guns for self defense are not interested in rendering "justice," they are interested in protecting their lives and the lives of others, and they quite rarely abuse their right to carry a gun.

Since so many of those people have their own interpretation of what justice means, a large number simply become murderers.

Except they don't.

A drug pusher dispenses his version of justice against his competitors.

He's initiating force which negates any such claim.

One guy arguing vehemently with another pulls out a gun and shoots the other dead (according to FBI, this kills 4,000 Americans each year).

He's initiating force which negates any claim of self defense (presuming that he was not in fact defending against the other person's initiation of force and deadly threat) and makes him liable not only for outlawry but for the loss of everything he owns as compensation for his acts.

A man who thinks his wife might be cheating on him applies his version of justice and she is murdered.

Murder is murder. It's initiating force and is never justified. There is no principle in Libertarianism that permits a man to murder his wife for cheating on him even if that's exactly what she's doing. There is no force initiated by her, although there may be fraud, depending on the nature of the domestic relationship contract they both agreed to, which might justify his seizing everything she owns as compensation for the breach of contract.

The libertarian "self help" approach has no consistency, since everyone thinks differently, and the USA ends up with 5 times the per capita murder rate of my country, which has a lot fewer guns and no vigilante mentality.

Your strawman delusion has nothing whatever to do with actual Libertarianism or contemporary American society.

[piscator]

Outside Somalia and a few other places, there's no such thing as "Actual Libertarianism". And actually, it's illegal under American law.

[JimC]

Outside Somalia and a few other places, there's no such thing as "Actual Libertarianism". And actually, it's illegal under American law.

Yep, it's nothing more than a fantasy wank-fest for amateur social theorists with delusions of grandeur and a nasty penchant for social darwinism. Luckily for them, they're peddling their odious crap under the umbrella of the US government, which, for all its faults, won't send them to re-education camps for being enemies of the state...

[Blind groper]

The Libertarianism that Seth preaches requires people to act responsibly. And there it all falls down.

The old communist idea also fell down on the same point. The communist leaders did not act according to the communist ideal of equality, and they carved out their own private empires instead. Any successful system has to work with human nature, not against it. Demanding everyone behaves responsibly or according to a set of principles is acting against human nature.

This is why we have laws and police forces. You cannot demand people behave responsibly without having the force to back it up.

[Seth]

The Libertarianism that Seth preaches requires people to act responsibly. And there it all falls down.

The old communist idea also fell down on the same point. The communist leaders did not act according to the communist ideal of equality, and they carved out their own private empires instead. Any successful system has to work with human nature, not against it. Demanding everyone behaves responsibly or according to a set of principles is acting against human nature.

This is why we have laws and police forces. You cannot demand people behave responsibly without having the force to back it up.

Libertarianism holds that most people do behave responsibly, which is observably true. It only differs in the mechanisms of coping with those who do not, and it takes the definition of misbehavior out of the hands of the tyrannical masses and politicians and sets a very strict standard as to what comprises misbehavior: the initiation of force or fraud.

This serves to control the propensity of those in power to wield that power corruptly to their and their cohorts benefit by defining misbehavior as anything outside of their own dogma.

[Blind groper]

Seth

When you take the responsibility for enforcing proper behaviour out of the hands of law makers and police, and into ordinary people, you lose consistency. One person will believe that a woman wearing a bikini is behaving improperly and must be punished. Another person believes that his business rivals are behaving improperly and must be punished, and so on.

End result is a wide range of 'crimes' and punishments. Murder and mayhem triumph.

[MrJonno]

Libertarianism holds that most people do behave responsibly, which is observably true

It's observably false, in fact I have grave doubts people even act primary as individuals. We are a hive collective with some variation within that collective. With the right use of media we can make most of the human race do just about anything.

[Seth]

Seth

When you take the responsibility for enforcing proper behaviour out of the hands of law makers and police, and into ordinary people, you lose consistency. One person will believe that a woman wearing a bikini is behaving improperly and must be punished. Another person believes that his business rivals are behaving improperly and must be punished, and so on.

End result is a wide range of 'crimes' and punishments. Murder and mayhem triumph.

Wearing a bikini, or no bikini at all, is not an initiation of force or fraud and therefore no one has any authority to punish her for her dress or her skin, and any attempt to do so is an initiation of force that may be resisted with force, up to and including deadly force if necessary.

If a businessman believes he's being defrauded, then he can try to convince others in the community that the others are acting fraudulently and he can ask them to join him in boycotting and picketing them and he can voice his opinion whenever and wherever he likes. Ultimately the community will judge who is guilty of fraudulent behavior and will take whatever action it feels appropriate by way of excluding the fraudsters, or the liar, from the community and from doing business with them. This does not require any initiation of force or fraud, merely an exercise of the community's sovereign right to pick and choose who they will and will not trade or associate with by excluding those who initiate force or fraud (like lying about a competitor's business practices to try to harm their trade) from all aspects of community life.

It doesn't matter what anyone "believes" about another, the metric is an initiation of force or fraud and the ultimate judges of the truth of a claim of the initiation of force or fraud by one person against another are the people of the community who impose that judgment in a peaceable but very effective manner through exclusion and shunning.

In egregious cases of force where individual self-defense is inadequate, members of the community may band together, or may contract with specialists, to provide sufficient force to prevent non-peaceable acts against the community.

In the event of repeated crimes despite public shunning, outlawry may be the ultimate rejection of the lawless individual. Outlawry means that the individual is literally "outside the law," meaning outside the protection of the law, and therefore is risking a fatal encounter with anyone who chances upon him and knows he's an outlaw, who may therefore take whatever action, forcible or otherwise, to deal with further criminality.

That's an ancient Norse concept that works pretty well.

So you're wrong again.