h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

Those terms are not defined liberally by a libertarian.

Harm: physical abuse, or use of coercion to force someone to do something against their will.

Fraud: deliberately withholding or fabricating information for personal gain.

In an anarchist sytem, gangs would rule. A libertarian approach solves that. In an anarchist system, rotten meat can be sold in the markets (the result of "true laissez-faire capitalism"), but the libertarians would call to account the companies to ensure that what they advertise is exactly what they sell.

Yes, corporations have the same rights as individuals. For example, if you lied in a lawsuit against a company, you would pay the penalty, just as that corporation would be liable had they lied about their product and caused you harm.

erm, seeing that anarchy actually means "without rule" i very much doubth that in a real anarchic society gange would rule
People misuse the word anarchy which is a shame..

---The Red Fish

Please correct away.
What is the proper use if I have misused it?
I'm still split on the whole corporations as people thing.
Good to hold them accountable, bad to consider them living entities as such.

A true anarchy would be without rule, true. But a true anarchy is every bit as much a pipe dream as capitalism and socialism. In anarchy, strength would reign, and people would band together for greater strength, just as happens in the inner cities, and take from the weaker. People do that now, and there are ways to stop them... how do you control it when there is not?

"The laws are decided by the society. If a person cannot abide by the minimum standards of societal behavior, they should be removed from society, until they can behave properly."

Well said. I think this should be the only reason for imprisonment. Our justice system should be based on prevention and rehabilitation, not retribution. The thought of punishment doesn't cross the minds of most criminals, they think they won't get caught.

"As to the prisoner issue, a prisoner is a person who has forfieted his rights to live in a civilized society."

I think even prisoners should have certain rights. I remember when I was in Basic Training our TIs told us we had forfeited our rights by signing up for the military. I remembered my civics classes and how the constitution states our rights are not forfeitable, but I knew it was just a bunch of mind games and kept my mouth shut .

"But don't kid yourself into thinking that kids wearing $90 Nikes are holding up convenience stores because society has forced them to."

No, I think these kids need to get some serious help. What I'm worried about is the fact that over 60% of death row inmates have serious mental illnesses and that 95% are destitute. We've got people who ARE in desperate situations who AREN'T being treated or helped, and then we act surprised when they commit a grevious crime. Texas has poor public services, and they think they can solve it by executing people at a faster rate?

"Are corporations people guaranteed the same rights under the law as you or I (This is only pertanent if you are a people)?"

Corporations are granted certain rights under our current laws, but they get treated better than people. If a person is guilty of murder they (usually) have to serve a long sentence or get the death penalty. Corporations never get any real punishment in cases of willful negligence or wrongful death (meaning they knew somebody would likely die from their actions). The people who are responsible for the decisions are rarely punished, usually someone lower takes the rap. How do expect them to act appropriately if we don't police them too?

I would have liked to clarify more and go into more detail, but I'm out of time...

you say anarchy would be rules be gangs but that would not be anarchy that would just be proto-fuedalism. Its like saying ice in a desert is water. Its not. Its ice in a desert, it transorms into water.... If you get what I mean...

---The Red Fish

So I've been thinking over the past couple of days.
Here is a big question since there seem to be more cappies here.
How do you define public property, or the public?
I bring it up because I wonder how either capitalism or libertarianism views the administration and maintanence of public issues.
Public.
When should the public interest override personal interest?
Public spaces, public property, good of the public, public policy.

Public property: any property owned jointly by the people (and therefore administered by the government) in order to provide a service to the entire community, which includes national parks, government buildings, libraries, recreational facilities, etc. Any administration of these types of facilities should involve feedback from the community it serves.

Personal property: anything owned by an individual or a cooperative of individuals for personal use. Any administration of these types of properties should involve no one except the people directly involved (owner, lienholders, shareholders, employees, etc.)

When should public interest override personal interest: this is, of course, a case-by-case decision that should be made... blanket policies don't really work. Basically, though, as long as the private concern does not adversely affect the population through coercion or fraud, it should be left to its own devices. If a business pollutes drinking water, for example, or improperly prepares food, it needs to be shut down to protect the health of the citizens. But if they openly sell an e-coli infected burger, and tell you what it means to you, and you're still dumb enough to buy it, you get what you deserve. Otherwise, things can be dealt with on a personal basis. Take the situation with football stadiums in the US as an example. In order to compete, teams are looking for the cities to build them new stadiums that will allow them to generate more money, which will allow them to hire better players. Some communities have been stupid enough to pay for it out of tax dollars, which is terribly unfair... most of the taxpayers either cannot afford to go to a game, or have no desire to. The teams argue that having them in town means added revenue for the city... let those people who stand to gain from it band together and work out a deal to build the new stadium, and allow the ardent fans to contribute what they desire to. This way, all the people served by having the team are a part of it, and all the people who don't care can choose to be left out of the venture. If the money can't be raised, then they can leave to a town that wants them badly enough to raise the requisite capital. And when no one bothers to at all, maybe the organizations will be forced to build their own damned stadiums, like they should... they're the ones that get all the revenue from it, anyway.

On the topic of socialism... maybe this is a local link you folks can help out on.?
http://www.h2g2.com/A409042 Compassionate Computers