Is WordForge Really A Family of Friends?

Well, I would say that a lot of anti-government activists are libertarian, so I guess you can draw your own conclusions from that.

Libertarianism isn't limited to its most extreme iteration, of course. There exist many "moderate" libertarians. But sometimes it is useful to determine where libertarian thinking actually leads. Nor is this purely academic, since when push comes to shove, many libertarians resort to extremist modes of thinking that lead precisely to the anomalous results we see here.

Yes, government would no longer prevent companies from building monopolies or engaging in legal but shady practices.

But the market would tend to do that, I'm thinking.

The flaw in your logic is that a Libertopia government wouldn't be worth it to buy. As one of the founding principles, it would be laissez-faire. A law voted in that would be in favor of a business or industry as you describe would get struck down as unconstitutional.

I think Big Biz thinks it's just right.

Bogus. It's a very libertarian idea.

Also bogus. Libertarianism recognizes the legitimacy of a state confined to those fundamental functions it should have.

I gotta say, you really should read about libertarianism if you're going to argue about it.

The individual's sovereignty overrides that of the state unless force or fraud are involved. Then the state has a right and a duty to intervene.

I'm not going to bother to address the rest of your post, because it all stems from the same set of misconceptions.

And yet Flashlight has campaigned hard to be a mod...sour grapes maybe?

Seriously, I'm not even one of the "big-time" posters, and I feel like this is a pretty supportive group, when it comes to important issues. Lots of people were offering me condolences about my pets dying, even those whom I've had nasty flame-wars with. I'm not one of the "elite", and I doubt I ever will be (I'll sure as hell never be mod, at least). And yet, I feel close to a lot of the posters here.

I can't help but think that the only reason Flashlight doesn't feel that way is cause he, frankly, doesn't want to.

Oh please. Flashlight has done some shitty stuff too. I remember not that long ago when he was following UA around calling him a child molester after that child bride thread. Fortunately, I realize that them's the breaks when you reveal things about your personal life here. You have to accept things being used against you later. Oddly, it doesn't really take away from the sense of community for me. We're a dysfunctional family, but a family still. I know I'd still be sad if Flashy left. He's one of us.

And you know this from being a member for one month??

Well I'm here for the pie!

I'll just cite Wikipedia in response:

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarianism

Here's an examination of one of the more extreme versions of libertarianism, as defined above:

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Individualist_anarchists

Yeah...see my thread "Something to take everyone's minds off "Teh Drama!!"

heh

Isn't Louisiana a Laissez-faire-centric state? Could it be looked at as an indication of what libertopia might be?

How do you buy the influence of a government that has no role in the private, personal, and financial lives of it's citizens?

If there is no influence to buy, how do you peddle it?

And nothing you quoted in the Wikipedia article supports the bizarro version of libertarianism you're talking about or significantly disagrees with what I've stated about libertarianism.

I think you're mistaken. For one thing, see the bolded language at the end of this paragraph.

Boldfacing of last sentence added.

If there is no state, there can be no equality under law.

First of all, the individualist anarchists are a small portion of libertarians. So at the very least, you are guilty of overgeneralizing.

Second, even under individualist anarchists, there would be some mechanism to create and enforce laws. It just wouldn't be a government.

I've met a few folks, talked to a few by phone. It's always been a good experience.

Huh?

Why do you read these threads if they bother you so much? I try to stay out of the heavy drama here, so why don't you?

Then what would it be?

If it's not government, whatever it is still wouldn't necessarily have to recognize equality under the laws.

Remember: There does exist private law under libertarianism. Private law is consensual (i.e., contractual). Even in nonlibertarianist contexts, private law is recognized by society. Contracts are sometimes said to constitute private law.

Let's look at contracts. Ever review the massive ones you sign when you get a cell phone under a contractual plan? The ones that give massive rights to the cell phone provider and in which you have no say in drafting? Some would consider these to be "adhesion contracts," but I digress. The point is that in no meaningful sense are the contracts really the result of your desires in most of their provisions -- the only desire of yours that is fulfilled is the one that motivates your consent, which is your need for a cell phone. Under this private law, there is no real equality. The cell phone company has most of the rights, and you have as few as the company desires. Yet this kind of contract is perfectly acceptable in a libertarian world. This is the kind of equality of under the law that you would get if there weren't the same communitarian interest that underlies the existence of popular government.

Once again, there is nothing intrinsic to libertarianism that promotes equality under law.

As for your first comment, I've already addressed why these extreme versions of libertarianism are important to understand. They are often resorted to by those who cannot reconcile themselves with the specific applications of public law and therefore show that libertarianism itself is often questionable even where it purports to be other than extreme.

I'm sure you're as capable as anyone of using Google to find information about the various theories of anarcho-captialists.

Here, for example, is a paper by one of the people cited in your Wikipedia article. In essence, he suggests a series of private law-enforcement agencies/systems would spring up.

First, this kind of contract is perfectly acceptable in our world. So what's your point?

Second, you have every right to not sign up for a cell phone. Or to hold out for a company that doesn't have you sign up with such an onerous contract. Or to start a cell phone company with the hook that you don't force clients to sign such contracts.

Show me an actual libertarian who holds that all adults aren't equal under the law, barring their use of force or fraud.

I already know what they would be. They are, in essence, neofeudal systems of governance, where private law supplants public law.

Since you're the one making the claim that this neofeudalism would necessarily recognize equality under the law, I think it's up to you to prove it.

Your paper is interesting, but it does not dispute that private law is not fundamentally equalitarian.

This is, in part, what it says:

Thus, equality under the law is not necessary.

The article then says,

There is, thus, even less reason to believe that there would be equality under the law, since there would be many kinds of law.

In other words, David Friedman, the author suggests a "just-so" story in which "transaction costs" would result in less legal diversity than would occur in principle. How convenient! But let me suggest another implication: If, indeed, the transactional costs of diverse codes are so high, then why wouldn't the system logically revert to exactly the same system that we have today -- a unified system of law promulgated under the communitarian interest?

Note that even under the "just-so" account Friedman postulates, the worst traits of libertarianism (i.e., that there would still be some inconsistent law codes) are combined with the worst ones of pure communitarianism (i.e., that there would exist law codes wouldn't be perfectly compatible with private interests). Moreover, law codes would still have potentially mutually incompatible means of interpretation and enforcement over which there would be no final arbiter that persists over time, since if there were such an arbiter, that arbiter would be a de facto state. If you're going to have such a permanent arbiter, on the other hand, then why not have a state?

Still further, in cases in which consumers are set up against corporations, in what possible sense could arbitration agreements not be susceptible to private interests if they are beholden to the private contractors with the most power to seek their services?

My point is that there would be no recourse in a libertarian world against unfair provisions in such contracts. There are in the real world. Further, in the libertarian world, even the courts would be subject to such adhesion contracts. Fair? I'll let you decide. An application of true equality under law? Hardly.

Have you tried setting up your own cell phone company recently?

I freely admit, and the evidence is abundently available, that I've had my share of shenanigans. It's not so much a complaint as it is a simple observation - Wordforge is what it is, and it's potential to evolve into something more seems rather limited given the current makeup of the membership. Which is why myself and most others here participate at other places, to get something different from the usual hijinks offered at WF (and I don't mean just hopping over to TK to post as "Disgruntled Wordforger").

To be honest, I regret joining in on that trolling stuff about you and UA. I realize that I've contributed to the environment that I'm describing, and I do regret it. It was just juvenile trolling, and I'm sorry.

Despite my activities here in the past, I'm simply found myself wanting more out of my online experience the past few months. Something different from Wordforge, something I don't WF can offer. Obviously I'm still here posting, but a definite shift has occured in my attitude and outlook on these things.

There's no "proving" it, as this is a purely theoretical construct. If enacted, it's entirely possible that equality under the law would not work out in practice. There is, for example, various arguments to be made that we are not all equal under the law as things stand, no matter how much we consider that a founding principle of our system.

But like I said, I challenge you to find a libertarian who does not have that equality as a fundamental principle of his/her ideology.

You are assuming your conclusion.

What Friedman says is that there's no guarantee of a single set of rules, although market pressure would tend to make some rules uniform.

It doesn't speak to whether there would generally be equality under the law. It certainly doesn't guarantee that there wouldn't be.

There are many different types of laws now. There's no inherent reason to believe that people would be denied equality simply because of wealth differentials.

No there aren't. Once you sign a cell phone contract, you're pretty much stuck with it unless you get the cell phone company to let you out of it.

I would say Friedman, from his writings.

It doesn't make a guarantee either way. As you say, it simply doesn't speak to it. In the absence of any guarantee, why would you assume that equality under law applies?

Also, there is a question as to what is meant by equality under law, if there are so many laws and the possibility of adhesion contractual law looms large?

Remember: We're not speaking of the objective application of laws in specific cases, but equality under the law.

But there exists only one set of truly fundamental laws under our system: The United States Constitution, which guarantees equality under law.

If the agreement is an adhesion contract, the fact that it was signed or otherwise accepted may be immaterial. Adhesion contracts are subject to remedy in a court of law regardless of whether they were entered into by the consumer.

For an example where this applies, see:

http://secondlife.reuters.com/stories/2007/05/31/judge-rules-against-one-sided-tos-in-bragg-lawsuit/

Fair Use excerpt:

The home owner's association got together last week and we killed that guy. Sorry.

Not really. I never hear people go on like that IRL. Only online.

Who would bother buying a government that has no power to regulate industry to your benefit?


This is why such objections and all the nonsense Exclesius spews is just a patch of strawmen.

I have another project I'm focusing on today.

That's what I meant.

This trinity reboot bores me...

At the end of the day, it seems ol' Enty started this thread just to troll libertarians by asking if WF considered itself a family, and then trying the straw argument that libertarians don't really have friends or family. Or something.

Silly me for responding to his bait.

In any case, I think I'm done for now trying to discuss this with him.

So are we saying that Excelsius is Enterpriser or Trinity?