Subject:
|
Re: Just Teasing, I Have No Intention of Debating Any of This...
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Tue, 25 Mar 2003 06:13:39 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1159 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Larry Pieniazek writes:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Bruce Schlickbernd writes:
>
> > You seem to be confusing between choosing from what's available, with having
> > a right to choose from what's available, with somehow expecting that you
> > should be offered whatever happens to suit your fancy.
> > So, yes, I can argue it.
>
> Sorry if I haven't been clear. I don't have any expectation that the market
> will provide me whatever I fancy, in this market or any other. What my
> expectation is, though, is that for it to be a free market, there cannot be
> unreasonable coercive barriers to entry. I argue that the "market for
> governments" has unreasonable coercive barriers to entry.
I'm still not getting where you are going with this, Larry. Free market of
governments? What in the world does that have to do with inheritable
contracts as a system of stable (or coercive) government? Unreasonable
coercive barriers to entry into government? That would seem to be arguing
the particulars of a system rather than a broad concept behind continuity
(or about getting into government). I said this at the start: I don't see
how any of this relates - perhaps it would be better to start a new thread
and divorce this from the current one entirely and maybe I'll get it then?
>
> Just as the cable TV market does in many parts of the US, for example, since
> that was cited as an example.
>
> >
> > >
> > > There's an aw'fly high barrier to entry to starting one's own government,
> > > after all, as long as we're confined to this one particular location. ALL
> > > the territory is already under control, and most governments don't take
> > > kindly to suggestions that they hive off a bit so some other org can try
> > > their hand at it.
> >
> > I'm not sure what your point is. Do you mean that no matter where you go
> > someone was there first, so you are stuck making some "contract" you don't
> > like? There are countries without taxes and have low populations - just go
> > inundate them with Libertarians and take over.
>
> Does it have to be the *entire* country? Or do you support the notion that
> any collection of landowners can decide to secede? Is that allowed, or no?
By "take over" I mean flood the area with enough voters that you can "modify
the contract". I'm not speaking of revolt. Seceding is perfectly okay as
long as the contract allows it (otherwise it is revolt, which may be
justified under any given system, but that's another debate).
-->Bruce<--
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
Message is in Reply To:
164 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
