Judge ideas on their merit, not on the status of who wrote them.
Your "explanations" are always so vague and brief.
You don't get it do you...Stiglitz provides a formal proof in the link I posted.
Much of the work on mises.org contains formal proofs.
Whoa, your slow.
You clearly don't understand the link you have provided. That oversimplified summary lacking any detail or explanation as to how exactly the material provided is relevant to the discussion at hand shows your inability to articulate what I can only assume is a half baked, poorly constructed argument against libertarianism.
Volition asked ''how it is supposedly a good thing to regulate the distribution of wealth. Why do you think this and to what extent do you mean?''
oh man, is this your first time arguing with libertarians? The Answer according to Libertarian code is Private Security firms which are then bound by contracts and contract/tort law. The courts themselves are private and hire private firms to subpoena their prospective "clients". (Though how bankruptcy would work in libertariantopia still baffles me. Slavery is probably their solution o.o) The security firms themselves are controlled by market forces (the better they stick to the rules, the more customers they get etc.)
Separation of powers.. Legislative, Judiciary and and Executive... and then the citizens. But yeah I agree, the mistake in extreme libertarianism is the assumption that removing a legitimised form of coercion (the government) will make anyone more free. There will be many many more bodies that coerce people under anarchism, its just that we don't know what these will be. People who hold to anarchism have the naive view that with the removal of laws we will be anymore free. There will be no legitimised way to maintain a social contract between people and people's basic liberties will be trampled upon whenever the opportunity arises. And no form of private security will stop this, people are opportunistic the way it is.
Because the police in a democratic system have always been uncorrupt and entirely accountable for their actions. Governments have never given police direct powers to interfere with democracy and protest, and even to directly commit overt violence against the people they are supposed to represent.
Hahahahahahaha
If you can't identify these coercive bodies, how can you substantiate your claim that they will come to exist at all?
I believe he got banned?
No lol, that's the point. It will just be people grouping together to protect themselves from other people. Which will fundamentally reduce peoples' freedoms rather than improving them. It will be groups of people that coerce each other and be unlegitimated authorities, which is scary, and potentially very dangerous. It really bad to be the minority under a who has the biggest gun situation.
How exactly will people protecting themselves from other people reduce freedoms, and to such a great extent that there would be less individual freedom overall than there is when people are controlled by the ever-expanding government of a nation state?
And there we have it ladies and gentlemen, the hallmark of a functionally illiterate 4th generation farm-hand;
Because people won't be restricted on what they want to do. If a powerful group of people wants everything you have and you can't stop them, then they will take everything you have. Unless you are more powerful than someone you will have no ability to protect yourself. If you are equally as powerful as someone then there will be this tense stand-off situation. And ALL the time people will be completely opportunistic in taking whatever they can. On top of this, giant powerful groups who dominate everyone will build up anyway. Its a bad situation.
I will leave a deeper critique to dieburndie, but you should note that many victimless crimes, such as drug offences (for which millions of people are imprisoned in the USA alone), would be uneconomical to prosecute in an anarcho-capitalist system, so in this sense, individuals are undeniably granted more freedom.
I agree in a more minimalist government. People often confuse governments with leftist governments that want to control more than is desirable. I'm just saying that a government is a more desirable mechanism to protect freedoms than a state of nature and that a belief that anarchism will make people freer is naive. But yeah, in terms of one's complete freedom to self determination in the private domain, I agree with this. Governments shouldn't really be controlling what people put in their bodies either, i.e. with marajuana and stuff. And I further agree, protectionism is generally bad as is any overly intrusive policy to a certain extent. Nonetheless, I think a mixture of both leftist and rightist policies is best, but more than that, a government mechanism of some kind is more desirable than anarachism.
