NationStates Jolt Archive

As a Libertarian I have always held that the proper function of Government is to 1. Provide militatry for defense 2. Provide Police to keep the peace and 3. Provide things that the Private Sector cannot (such as roads). I believe that the proper function of Government is to make sure that you have as much freedom and liberity as possible and that your action do not infringe on the rights of others. I believe that all level of Government should be restricted as much as possible and that the Fair Tax should be the only source of "income" for the government. So what do you guys believe is the proper function of Government?

People...people...have we all forgotten what government is all about. Being nasty to people and telling them to do stuff they don't want to do because the head honchos get a kick out of it?! :p What is this world coming to?! :rolleyes:

At what point was this not a function of government?

Protect rights and provide for those who are unable to provide for themselves.

Ugh, second timewarped post in a row.

Libertarianism means nothing, it's simply the intellectual outgrowth for justification of the economic hegemony of capitalism. Trying to have abstract 'rights' takes it out of a material context. 'Freedom' is subjective, freedom for capitalism; that is free trade, exchange and enterprise, is ultimately completely in contradiction with the 'freedom' of the working masses.

In short, libertarianism = freedom for slave owners.

I believe that the proper function of Government is to make sure that you have as much freedom and liberity as possible and that your action do not infringe on the rights of others.Agreed.

People...people...have we all forgotten what government is all about. Being nasty to people and telling them to do stuff they don't want to do because the head honchos get a kick out of it?! :p What is this world coming to?! :rolleyes:

-snip-

No one will directly disagree with those things.

The problem comes when the elite decide that the masses are too dumb to know what to do with their money, won't play nice unless forced to, can't handle small amounts of local power without abusing it, etc. etc. Instead, we give a large chunk of our cash to a group of people who waste and abuse it worse than we ever would, but they employ enough lawyers to effectively tell us otherwise. :p

I think the proper function of the government is too piss off its citizens as much as possible so they can talk about something other than Paris Hilton over the dinner table.

If private sector can theoretically provide jobs and housing and health care and self-regulate for the environment (it can't seem to do some of these things in practice), then why can't it also provide roads (tolls, contractual maintenance), and defense and police protection too?

To protect innocent bystanders from poor grammar.

Grammar doesn't kill people, people kill people. The United States was founded on the principles of poor grammar.

Damn warps!

So what do you guys believe is the proper function of Government?

To protect us from monkeys with guns. ;)

As a Libertarian I have always held that the proper function of Government is to 1. Provide militatry for defense 2. Provide Police to keep the peace and 3. Provide things that the Private Sector cannot (such as roads). I believe that the proper function of Government is to make sure that you have as much freedom and liberity as possible and that your action do not infringe on the rights of others. I believe that all level of Government should be restricted as much as possible and that the Fair Tax should be the only source of "income" for the government. So what do you guys believe is the proper function of Government?

To protect innocent bystanders from poor grammar.

Libertarianism means nothing, it's simply the intellectual outgrowth for justification of the economic hegemony of capitalism. Trying to have abstract 'rights' takes it out of a material context. 'Freedom' is subjective, freedom for capitalism; that is free trade, exchange and enterprise, is ultimately completely in contradiction with the 'freedom' of the working masses.

In short, libertarianism = freedom for slave owners.

Wow. I think you just talked my pants right off!

*goes off to look for them*

The proper role of a democratic government is to do whatever the electorate requires of them.

Libertarianism means nothing, it's simply the intellectual outgrowth for justification of the economic hegemony of capitalism. Trying to have abstract 'rights' takes it out of a material context. 'Freedom' is subjective, freedom for capitalism; that is free trade, exchange and enterprise, is ultimately completely in contradiction with the 'freedom' of the working masses.

In short, libertarianism = freedom for slave owners.

Libertarian preaches Freedom and Liberity for everyone from Government tyranny and from government intrusion.

Libertarian preaches Freedom and Liberity for everyone from Government tyranny and from government intrusion.

But it is perfectly fine with private tyranny and private intrusion, within certain limits.

Libertarian preaches Freedom and Liberity for everyone from Government tyranny and from government intrusion.

That's the same rhetoric that the bourgeois used to overthrown feudalism. Life, Liberty, Property and freedom from absolutism, they all represent the bourgeois relations and the material reality that the bourgeois need deregulation of economic borders in order to survive.

My position is that ideologies are not abstract statements but do in fact represent existing material relations, so libertarianism exists as the natural expression for the desires of the bourgeois class for economic freedom to exploit.

Again, read my previous comment.

But it is perfectly fine with private tyranny and private intrusion, within certain limits.

Citizen make contracts with the Private Sector all the time, they can break their contract anytime they want. The private sector already comes with a form of control that is always in the hand of the consumers, the almight dollar, Euro, Yen, whatever.

To leave me the fuck alone.

The proper function of government is to secure the rights and freedoms of individual citizens.

The proper function of the state is to end. (Most especially the Federal Government.)

That's the same rhetoric that the bourgeois used to overthrown feudalism. Life, Liberty, Property and freedom from absolutism, they all represent the bourgeois relations and the material reality that the bourgeois need deregulation of economic borders in order to survive.

My position is that ideologies are not abstract statements but do in fact represent existing material relations, so libertarianism exists as the natural expression for the desires of the bourgeois class for economic freedom to exploit.

Again, read my previous comment.
That's only a problem if exploitation is a bad thing. If that's your position, you'll need to justify that value judgement.

To secure and defend the rights of Life, Liberty, and Pursuit of Property for its citizens.

caring for all members of the society in a just and humane way is pretty much the reason governments came into existence

now seeing as how your asking for it:

how does reverting back to some horrific age I like to call an inspector calls where the least fortunate members of society get to die because it wouldn't be fair to inconvenience people solve anything? does it even make any sort of sense?

can this fad die now please?

The problem with "libertarianism" is that it tries to pretend to be some "different" ideology that it isn't.

Most libertarians will still agree with the basic premise "provide for things that the private sector can't". You use roads in your example. The problem is that roads can, theoretically be handled by private institutions. They could, theoretically, build roads. There's nothing that makes it a particularly "government only" institution. Same with military and police. Where most libertarians go, and where I suspect you go, is that most private institutions won't because it would be cost prohibitive in many instances. Which means that while private sector COULD do roads, they won't.

So your stance is not "the goernment should do what the private sector can't". It's "the government should do what the private sector wont do, at an efficiency level necessary for our society".

And with that you are no different than any other political ideology. Your "libertarianism" is no different than my socialist capitalism We just disagree as to what jobs the private sector would be willing to do, and we disagree with what we would consider an efficient level necessary for our society.

You might think health care is something the private system handles well enough. I see evidence of numerous people uninsured as evidence that private health care is not operating at an efficient level. You might see welfare as something best handled by charities. I see people on the street and think that is insufficient.

The fundamentals of your ideology are no different than anyone elses, you just disagree as to what point private sector responsibility is sufficient.

The goal of the government is ultimately, as any cooperative endeavor of any species, to promote the perpetuation of the species.
Well, ok, not really; but if they fail to do that they go extinct. By the same line of thought they should perpetuate themselves, which is unfortunately a rather good description of what they do.

The problem with "libertarianism" is that it tries to pretend to be some "different" ideology that it isn't.

Most libertarians will still agree with the basic premise "provide for things that the private sector can't". You use roads in your example. The problem is that roads can, theoretically be handled by private institutions. They could, theoretically, build roads. There's nothing that makes it a particularly "government only" institution. Same with military and police. Where most libertarians go, and where I suspect you go, is that most private institutions won't because it would be cost prohibitive in many instances. Which means that while private sector COULD do roads, they won't.

So your stance is not "the goernment should do what the private sector can't". It's "the government should do what the private sector wont do, at an efficiency level necessary for our society".

And with that you are no different than any other political ideology. Your "libertarianism" is no different than my socialist capitalism We just disagree as to what jobs the private sector would be willing to do, and we disagree with what we would consider an efficient level necessary for our society.

You might think health care is something the private system handles well enough. I see evidence of numerous people uninsured as evidence that private health care is not operating at an efficient level. You might see welfare as something best handled by charities. I see people on the street and think that is insufficient.

The fundamentals of your ideology are no different than anyone elses, you just disagree as to what point private sector responsibility is sufficient.

Hmmm I agree with Neo Art on something.

The end of NSG is upon us. :p

To protect us from monkeys with guns. ;)

No, to protect our monkeys with guns from other monkeys with guns.

The problem with libertarianism is that it doesn't protect anyone. Take me, middle class, maybe upper middle class. If I stopped paying taxes and had that money at my disposal, I could probably afford to pay for private police protection, private insurance (I do anyway), pay tolls on my roads, I could probably live the life I live pretty much as I do, substituting money I pay for taxes into paying private companies for services.

What about the lower class? They can't afford insurance. They can't afford private police protection. They can't afford to pay tolls for roads, or access to private mass transit. They can't afford legal protections.

The middle class and above will be more or less unaffected. But libertarianism as a philosophy should be more accurately called "fuckthepoorism". Because that's all it is.

Function of Government.
To provide for the needs of it's people where they need it.
(like Hospitals, firestations, rehabilitation centres, schools)
To provide protection from other states.
To help free trade.
To create a legal system that deals with convicted criminals, and victims.
I'm sure there's more.

To help free trade.

I'm sorry emergency stop on the conversation...so your saying governments should be bound to one economic theory regardless of what the actual population think?

IMF/WTO is that you?

As a Libertarian I have always held that the proper function of Government is to 1. Provide militatry for defense 2. Provide Police to keep the peace and 3. Provide things that the Private Sector cannot (such as roads). I believe that the proper function of Government is to make sure that you have as much freedom and liberity as possible and that your action do not infringe on the rights of others. I believe that all level of Government should be restricted as much as possible and that the Fair Tax should be the only source of "income" for the government. So what do you guys believe is the proper function of Government?

I agree but I would extend the role of government to giving education and health care vouchers to poor people. Not having public schools or state hospitals, but giving the impoverished just enough to get by in the free market. And, instead of the fair tax, I support a flat payroll tax. I think that works better. Either that, or allow the government to run all the casinos and the national lottery so that they don't have to tax us.

And by the way, it is possible to have the private sector build roads. But can you imagine what might happen if Wal-Mart built and owned the road in front of your house? They could ban you from driving home if you went shopping at Target.

The proper function of government is to define and enforce property rights, build public infrastucture, provide eductation & healthcare, regulate the private sector, mitigate the business cycle, reduce poverty(especially when it comes to child poverty), fight inflation, manage publically owned natural resources, invest in R&D, respect civil rights, and protect the environment.

The proper function of government is to define and enforce property rights, build public infrastucture, provide eductation & healthcare, regulate the private sector, mitigate the business cycle, reduce poverty(especially when it comes to child poverty), fight inflation, manage publically owned natural resources, invest in R&D, respect civil rights, and protect the environment.

Although that is all quite vague, I suppose I agree with all of it. All of it except fight inflation because, from what I have learned, inflation tends to get worse when the government tries to minimize it.

Quite honestly as an American I believe the responsibility of a government is to give voice to the concerns of its citizens, provide defense for the People, and provide an economic base so its people may prosper. Although, admittedly, the United States is classified as a Constitutional Republic (or was that just Republic?), and the form of government resides around the basis of Representatives representing the People TO the Government, I have found that a more democratic form would be pleasing.

Now, to counter-act my position, if such a system were in place in America, the voting process needed to actually pass certain bills under such a form of government probably wouldn't work. I mean, perhaps it would, but it is my belief Americans are too concentrated on their own individual lives to care to go to the polls except maybe a few times each year. Thats just the wider spectrum there.

Now State and County wise, I think it could work. You get pollings for sheriff's and mayor's all the time here, so the individuals would be more inclined to vote more often as they do when they go to Town Meetings or County Meetings to discuss what the future of said town or county would be. But thats just at the state level, so theres a lot to question there.

Anyways, point being the People themselves should have the right to govern themselves, with a supervising entity to enact said governing and prevent said collapse of society and provide said benefits to enrich the free and democratic way of life. I suppose it comes from the way I was raised, and how People have the right to Liberty and a Prosperous and Happy life. Although, admittedly, in this world it nearly often enough never transpires. Not saying it doesn't, its just sometimes hard to achieve.

I'm sorry emergency stop on the conversation...so your saying governments should be bound to one economic theory regardless of what the actual population think?

IMF/WTO is that you?

IMF? (http://www.imf.org/external/index.htm)
WTO? (http://www.wto.org/)
What economic theory? free trade? I thought that was the ideal anyway, but to be honest i don't know much about it.
I thought that governments at least promote free trade, without massive tax barriers. Maybe i'm wrong:confused:

The only rational function of a government is to do what the constituent people want it to do at that time, nothing more and nothing less.

Although that is all quite vague, I suppose I agree with all of it. All of it except fight inflation because, from what I have learned, inflation tends to get worse when the government tries to minimize it.

You're against central banking? What actions, from the government, do you take as fighting inflation?

I believe that the proper function of Government is to make sure that you have as much freedom and liberity as possible

If you rely on the government to provide your freedom and liberty, then you, sir, are no Libertarian.

What economic theory? free trade? I thought that was the ideal anyway, but to be honest i don't know much about it.

depends on your views really...

careful or you will have me bickering with NL

I thought that governments at least promote free trade, without massive tax barriers. Maybe i'm wrong:confused:

depends on what the tax is for such as enviromental impact from shipping and such

its really not a simple case of government hating imports

You're against central banking? What actions, from the government, do you take as fighting inflation?

Well, from what I know, the government in America is responsible for most of the inflation over the past century. Mostly from printing money, and some from market subsidies and price controls. However, some natural inflation occurs in the free-market as a result of technological advances and whatnot.

As for central banking. I guess I am against it. Are there any good reasons as to why I should support central banking?:confused:

Sad but true. One cannot have freedom and liberty if it is at the mercy of a monopoly on jurisdiction, i.e. an institution that decides what your freedom and liberty are, whether in the hands of one person or the majority.

As opposed to market anarchism where what freedom and liberty one has is decided by market forces?

If you rely on the government to provide your freedom and liberty, then you, sir, are no Libertarian.

Sad but true. One cannot have freedom and liberty if it is at the mercy of a monopoly on jurisdiction, i.e. an institution that decides what your freedom and liberty are, whether in the hands of one person or the majority.

Sad but true. One cannot have freedom and liberty if it is at the mercy of a monopoly on jurisdiction, i.e. an institution that decides what your freedom and liberty are, whether in the hands of one person or the majority.

What about that paradox about how we actually are more free when we have rules and regulations. Having no jurisdiction would mean having no more security than whatever you could provide for yourself.

As for central banking. I guess I am against it. Are there any good reasons as to why I should support central banking?:confused:

Independent central banks is the part of government that fights inflation. So when the inflation part of the 70s stagflation was reduced one can look to the various central banks of the world for most of the responsibility.

I said we shouldn't have a MONOPOLY on jurisdiction (defined as having a legal, i.e. violent, barrier to entry), not that we should have no jurisdictions. Just as it would be stupid to only allow one person to make shoes and arrest everyone else who tries to compete, so would it be stupid to that for the industry of security and law.

Oh I see, so you are saying that the government shouldn't have a monopoly on jurisdiction. So there should be more vigilante justice. More macho guys dueling over women and people disappearing overnight for not paying "protection money." Stuff like that?

What about that paradox about how we actually are more free when we have rules and regulations. Having no jurisdiction would mean having no more security than whatever you could provide for yourself.

I said we shouldn't have a MONOPOLY on jurisdiction (defined as having a legal, i.e. violent, barrier to entry), not that we should have no jurisdictions. Just as it would be stupid to only allow one person to make shoes and arrest everyone else who tries to compete, so would it be stupid to that for the industry of security and law.

Oh I see, so you are saying that the government shouldn't have a monopoly on jurisdiction. So there should be more vigilante justice. More macho guys dueling over women and people disappearing overnight for not paying "protection money." Stuff like that?

Actually, the commission of vigilance in San Francisco did far better and was more just than the horrifically unjust and inefficient San Francisco local government, because the commission of vigilance was an organization of private citizens trying to protect their private property while the San Francisco government wasn't so much interested in providing justice as it was giving favors to the politically connected. Law Merchant, business arbitration, the hundred in early Anglo-Saxon England, wagon trains and mining camps in the West, early colonial Massachusetts and Pennsylvania, medieval Iceland and Ireland, and others are good examples in which non-statist system of justice succeeded while the statist systems that replaced them were and are plagued with inefficiency and corruption. And with modern communications and credit systems, we could replace a great deal of violent dispute resolution with peaceful restitution to the victims instead of supporting political interest groups.

What about the lower class? They can't afford insurance. They can't afford private police protection. They can't afford to pay tolls for roads, or access to private mass transit. They can't afford legal protections.
But the wealthy would have an incentive to protect them, to some degree, because the lower classes are necessary sources of labour.

But the wealthy would have an incentive to protect them, to some degree, because the lower classes are necessary sources of labour.

Except they can't capture all the benefit because of externalities .

Except they can't capture all the benefit because of externalities .
Why do they need to capture all of the benefit? They're poor, after all.

The idea of 'freedom from government' and the bourgeois capitalist model are completely contradictory, it's a ruse because the bourgeois will never allow the labor that keeps them around to be taken from them. If the true freedom you libertarians preach about was created, capitalism wouldn't last a day because the workers wouldn't accept wage-slavery for a second longer.
This is a good reason to support automation. Then we don't even need those pesky workers.

The idea of 'freedom from government' and the bourgeois capitalist model are completely contradictory, it's a ruse because the bourgeois will never allow the labor that keeps them around to be taken from them. If the true freedom you libertarians preach about was created, capitalism wouldn't last a day because the workers wouldn't accept wage-slavery for a second longer.

The power of the bourgeois does not rest on it's freedom, this is a trivial ruse, it rests on it's monopoly on organized violence. Neoliberalism, libertarianism, fascism, they are all forms of capitalism as different stages of class struggle, fascism is the most desperate stage when the bourgeois must utilize the full apparatus of the state is repress worker uprising and socialism.

Why do they need to capture all of the benefit? They're poor, after all.

The wealthy would need a competitive rate of return to subsidize the poor's protection which is less likely given how much one can get the benefits of protection without paying for it one's self.

Actually, the commission of vigilance in San Francisco did far better and was more just than the horrifically unjust and inefficient San Francisco local government, because the commission of vigilance was an organization of private citizens trying to protect their private property while the San Francisco government wasn't so much interested in providing justice as it was giving favors to the politically connected. Law Merchant, business arbitration, the hundred in early Anglo-Saxon England, wagon trains and mining camps in the West, early colonial Massachusetts and Pennsylvania, medieval Iceland and Ireland, and others are good examples in which non-statist system of justice succeeded while the statist systems that replaced them were and are plagued with inefficiency and corruption. And with modern communications and credit systems, we could replace a great deal of violent dispute resolution with peaceful restitution to the victims instead of supporting political interest groups.

I couldn't agree more. There are indeed a lot of situations where people just get together and find a better system than the government can.

The idea of 'freedom from government' and the bourgeois capitalist model are completely contradictory, it's a ruse because the bourgeois will never allow the labor that keeps them around to be taken from them. If the true freedom you libertarians preach about was created, capitalism wouldn't last a day because the workers wouldn't accept wage-slavery for a second longer.

I believe those are called unions, which do not seem to have overthrown the bourgeois paradise we all inhabit.

To protect the rights and freedoms of its citizens. To maintain all of its citizens have access to healthcare, transportation, living wages and proper infrastructure such as clean, running water. The government should also educate it population. If a government does not ensure these things, then it quite simply is not a good government.

Citizen make contracts with the Private Sector all the time, they can break their contract anytime they want. The private sector already comes with a form of control that is always in the hand of the consumers, the almight dollar, Euro, Yen, whatever.

What if you don't have any dollars because your parents didn't have any dollars?

I couldn't agree more. There are indeed a lot of situations where people just get together and find a better system than the government can.

But the thing is, private citizens are the only ones with the incentives to protect themselves, while the government only has incentives to serve their political interests. That's why we have a desire to criminalize even petty acts for the benefit of the budgets of various bureaucracies and the psychic income of certain particular interests who can make others pay the costs of their agitation. It's why we have police arrests for politically sensitive crimes like drug use and sodomy instead of property crimes (there is only a very small margin of being caught if you ever commit a property crime one time). It's why we have prosecutors going after easy cases in which they prosecute or force poor people with criminal records to agree to plea bargains when they are prosecuted for crimes against politically powerful rich people with clean slates, thus leaving poor or disreputable victims to the cruelty of their fellow man and allowing rich or defendable people off the hook. And it's why judges take on only a few politically sensitive and easy cases while handing out ridiculously long sentences. Finally, it's why we have drug users crowding up prisons to force the justice system to let actual malefactors like murderers out early.

We also have the desire of bureaucracies to be intentionally inefficient, so that they can use rising crime rates, overcrowded prisons, and overloaded dockets to demand more funds at the expense of the public. Not to mention that the justice system, by its very nature of an expropriator and redistributor of rights, is under constant pressure to corruptly sell off these rights to various underground elements, and their fellow bureaucrats will protect them so as to avoid damaging the bureaucracy and their own self-interest.

In the end, only private citizens can defend themselves, just as government will only protect itself and its friends.

But the thing is, private citizens are the only ones with the incentives to protect themselves, while the government only has incentives to serve their political interests. That's why we have a desire to criminalize even petty acts for the benefit of the budgets of various bureaucracies and the psychic income of certain particular interests who can make others pay the costs of their agitation. It's why we have police arrests for politically sensitive crimes like drug use and sodomy instead of property crimes (there is only a very small margin of being caught if you ever commit a property crime one time). It's why we have prosecutors going after easy cases in which they prosecute or force poor people with criminal records to agree to plea bargains when they are prosecuted for crimes against politically powerful rich people with clean slates, thus leaving poor or disreputable victims to the cruelty of their fellow man and allowing rich or defendable people off the hook. And it's why judges take on only a few politically sensitive and easy cases while handing out ridiculously long sentences. Finally, it's why we have drug users crowding up prisons to force the justice system to let actual malefactors like murderers out early.

We also have the desire of bureaucracies to be intentionally inefficient, so that they can use rising crime rates, overcrowded prisons, and overloaded dockets to demand more funds at the expense of the public. Not to mention that the justice system, by its very nature of an expropriator and redistributor of rights, is under constant pressure to corruptly sell off these rights to various underground elements, and their fellow bureaucrats will protect them so as to avoid damaging the bureaucracy and their own self-interest.

In the end, only private citizens can defend themselves, just as government will only protect itself and its friends.

Wao! Encore!

Yes but Vendee the kinda private control you advocate will result in just the same external imposition you rail against. Ultimately you giving the freedom to exploit, so if for example a water stream existed in a village, everyone gets their water from it, but if one day a group of private individuals set up an armed guard around it, it instantly is commodified.

But the thing is, private citizens are the only ones with the incentives to protect themselves... <snip> ... In the end, only private citizens can defend themselves, just as government will only protect itself and its friends.

Your signature contradicts your thesis.

Long live Serbia! NATO out of Kosovo!

Your signature contradicts your thesis.

Your asking a libertarian to be logically consistent? That's like asking water not be be wet.

-snip-

If that were true, stateless law systems would have been catastrophes, but instead they were far superior to their replacements. Rather, what creates the state is when one does not apply the same principles to external dealings as one does with internal dealings; hence why while the system of the hundred in England allowed for peace and prosperity, the imbedded system of warfare that violated property rights and stole restitution from ceorls eventually resulted in statist catastrophe.

Your signature contradicts your thesis.

Serbia =/= Serbian government, who have been or are mostly imbecilic or treacherous or both (like Milosevic or Boris Tadic.) I have a deep attachment to my people and do not want to see them harmed, especially by an international organization like NATO or their own government. They, too, are the only ones who can protect themselves.

Your asking a libertarian to be logically consistent? That's like asking water not be be wet.

Or like Andaras not trolling?

Actually, the commission of vigilance in San Francisco did far better and was more just than the horrifically unjust and inefficient San Francisco local government, because the commission of vigilance was an organization of private citizens trying to protect their private property while the San Francisco government wasn't so much interested in providing justice as it was giving favors to the politically connected. Law Merchant, business arbitration, the hundred in early Anglo-Saxon England, wagon trains and mining camps in the West, early colonial Massachusetts and Pennsylvania, medieval Iceland and Ireland, and others are good examples in which non-statist system of justice succeeded while the statist systems that replaced them were and are plagued with inefficiency and corruption. And with modern communications and credit systems, we could replace a great deal of violent dispute resolution with peaceful restitution to the victims instead of supporting political interest groups.

But the stateless law systems you describe are only applicable on the small scale. Small communities are very effective at policing themselves, because everyone knows everyone else and trust can build up. However, this law systems will inevitable become biased against outsiders to the community (this is basic in-group/out-group psychology). Furthermore, they would just not be practical in modern societies, where people travel a lot and half the time you don't know your next door neightbour.

Yes state systems have the capacity to have corruption, however, when working right, they are also have greater capacity to ensure that the laws are applied consistently and fairly. It may not be perfect, but in modern, society, with large population concetrations and frequent population movement, it is the only way a justice system can realistically work.

well, to answer the origional thread title question [i sorta got bored with the responces not far through. it was kinda obvious the general direction at least half of them would take.] i present this:

on the subject of governance (http://fragmentedprincipality.spaces.live.com/blog/cns!1DAA178119A37A0B!148.entry)

be advised that that has not been cleaned up and was the product of me writing at some silly hour when i couldn't sleep. the thoughts expressed, however, are actual thoughts on the subject. it's also heavily influenced by New Zealand my opinions of New Zealand politics [that being what i have the most exposure to] and to a lesser extent U.S. politics, as viewed by, well, me. not being an American and all.

one day i might actually tidy that up and bulk it out.[hah, right, this and a million and three other things]

it's an interesting set of thoughts, if you can put up with the 'style'.

3. Provide things that the Private Sector cannot (such as roads).

Why can't the private sector provide roads? All motorways here in Italy have been privatised - so the private sector is able provide roads.

The point is another: giving to private sector the control of key infrastructures places the private controller of such infrastructures in an effective position of monopoly.

ALL infrastructures should be property of the State (or of local authority). Then, all private subjects can use and offer services on such infrastructures (just like any privately-owned bus corp uses the public roads). This should go for telephones, radio frequencies and large transmitters, roads, railroads, aqueducts, pipelines, seaports and airports etc etc. In a liberal society, there is no place for any kind of private monopoly: "natural" monopolies (such as infrastructures) should be under the control of the public sector, represented by the State or by public agencies.

Yeah umm, no thanks, when the private sector gets roads we get tolls, next it'll be private protection agency and 'police insurance', no thanks...

But the stateless law systems you describe are only applicable on the small scale. Small communities are very effective at policing themselves, because everyone knows everyone else and trust can build up. However, this law systems will inevitable become biased against outsiders to the community (this is basic in-group/out-group psychology). Furthermore, they would just not be practical in modern societies, where people travel a lot and half the time you don't know your next door neightbour.

Actually, this kind of system would work quite well in a modern society; the system of ethnic enclaves in American cities wherein one had tight-knit groups within the setting of a large area is an example, wherein one can take advantage of the benefits of both a division of labor AND tight-knit group reciprocity. (Indeed, the system of atomistic cities is modern phenomenon caused by the state taking on roles previously controlled by subsidiary institutions like families and churches, such as welfare, and thus weakening the benefits of reciprocity.) People would likely not travel as much if they have benefits from staying in place, and even so, there would still be a need to have others vouch for one's character and one would seek a similar enclave as one previously lived in when moving about (such as moving from one Irish neighborhood to another.) Also, modern systems of credit would allow for more effective social sanction and ostracism, which are non-violent methods of dispute resolution, rather than an instant reliance upon physical violence as statist law systems have always preferred.

Yes state systems have the capacity to have corruption, however, when working right, they are also have greater capacity to ensure that the laws are applied consistently and fairly. It may not be perfect, but in modern, society, with large population concetrations and frequent population movement, it is the only way a justice system can realistically work.

State systems cannot 'work right'; without a price system of rationing, there must be some other method of calculation. Being that the business of the state is to redistribute rights through force, statist systems will fail to deliver these rights to those who deserve it and instead use political rationing to expropriate from some and give to others, whether they are interest groups, bureaucrats, or politicians.

Your asking a libertarian to be logically consistent? That's like asking water not be be wet.

Well, actually it isn't particularly...

Well, actually it isn't particularly...

Shhhh, he just wants attention...

Grammar doesn't kill people, people kill people.
Grammar don't kills people, comma splices kill people!

Grammar don't kills people, comma splices kill people!
I like using semi-colons; they make me feel smart.

The government's prime function should be to kick ass.

Hell, why stop there?

Everyone's prime function should be to kick ass. I don't care who's ass is kicked, as long as people are kicking ass.

That would be kick ass. :D

As a Libertarian I have always held that the proper function of Government is to 1. Provide militatry for defense 2. Provide Police to keep the peace and 3. Provide things that the Private Sector cannot (such as roads). I believe that the proper function of Government is to make sure that you have as much freedom and liberity as possible and that your action do not infringe on the rights of others. I believe that all level of Government should be restricted as much as possible and that the Fair Tax should be the only source of "income" for the government. So what do you guys believe is the proper function of Government?

Depends what you mean. The proper function of any Government is to uphold that which it sets out to uphold in the manner it sets out to uphold it in its respective constitution. As such, the proper function of the American government is to:

establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity

In a manner consistent with the Articles and Amendments laid out in the Constitution. I think what you mean to ask is whether the only proper way to do the above is to limit government action to your recommendations. To which I would respond that it is sometimes necessary, but hardly all the time. Making "sure that you have as much freedom and liberity as possible and that your action do not infringe on the rights of others" was a the stated aim of American politicians during the Gilded Age and during the 20's and 30's, but they found that they could not reconcile maximizing freedom as you seem to be defining it with domestic tranquility and the general welfare. As such, no.