I am not saying because there is government everything will be rosy, I am saying there has to be "some form of govt". If Russia (your example) had "no govt" for example who would control their nuclear armoury? Would would regulate services, collect taxes etc. If there is no govt control you have a big problems, power vacume so will always be filled. You are off on a tangent, of course there is going to be bad govt. I am not getting dragged into talking about Hitler or Tony Abbot killing Jews. You talking about the people, of course it has to do with the people - big surprise.... That is common sense.
Sure there is community , the local school community is one, your own cultural community is another, so is small town community. Ask someone over 75 about community and they'll set you straight shiney. I also never said whatever community you belong to should provide everything on a silver platter. IMO We have to look after our own interests but issues of national importance like affordable housing for our youth instead of selling out to the Chinese go beyond rational self interest. Unless of course you want to profit on the misery of our youth by selling to the highest overseas bidder. Btw how much do you pay your juniors? $8 an hour? Looking after your self interest by ripping them off at your fine dining establishment? Or do you pay them generously above award wage? Just curious.
Negative rights are widely regarded as a rationally moral foundation for societies. David Friedman has argued that they actually arise naturally as part of any free society (with minimal deviations) purely because they are economically rational as well. They are also eminently natural in other social mammal groups as well. I have yet to find any conclusive rational arguments that can define a system of rights for organising society which are philosophically, economically or naturally internally consistent like the non-aggression principle (and believe me, lots of people have tried over the centuries). If you can define a set of internally consistent, reasoned moral principles then I am all ears and will happily let the free market work
When I read this all I see is that you doubt that law enforcement and justice can be privatised. We've had previous discussions on this. Simple answer is Yes, the principle dispute resolution functions of government can readily be privatised. A much bigger topic in my opinion that requires willingness on your part to research and consider the alternatives.
Offhand, I don't know. I think it's more than $8/hr though, but maybe it's not. I'll check with the Boss and get back to you, in the end they get what they deserve. I think though you're confused if you think "fine dining" and our place go hand in hand. You're more likely to get a "Feck off you cnut" from the front of house, but then again, you might also get a life changing experience if you order the battered mac and listen long enough to the sermon. And why should we pay them above the award wage? If there is a minimum wage, shouldn't that be the minimum wage? Most workers deserve less than that anyway. Edited to sound not like the Old Testament
If you know someone who is a compulsive liar and adulterer you don't think that some moral lessons might be helpful ? (assuming he doesn't know) ? Yes, but choosing immoral actions as seen by his local community could get him banned from every establishment and shunned by everyone. Don't make the mistake that people who oppose government also oppose rules and governance. Do you realise that if the shop keeper did NOT raise his prices he would sell out instantly ?? Then as soon as he gets more he sells out instantly again ? That doesn't sound very balanced to me.
I guess you would then propose rationing the goods so that people can only have 1 liter of milk and 1 loaf of bread every day or whatever... That sounds a lot like wartime to me (when the government destroyed the working market and created widespread shortages) Without a free market "price gouging" you end up with shortages. Shortages don't help anybody. Allowing prices to rise to meet demand, and thereby encouraging new market entrants is not only more moral it is more efficient and benefits everybody as quickly as possible. For those of you not convinced yet, can you please respond to this point specifically. It seems it keeps getting avoided by some here.
So you mean if I think you are incredibly arrogant and lacking in humanity it is my duty to tell you and encourage you to change ?
I didn't suggest it was anyone's "duty" did I ? But you are certainly quite welcome to make suggestions. It is my choice to do with that as I wish. Please respond to my previous post
You didn't answer my question about whether you have the right to tell others what is moral or not. Do you equate anybody having a different moral view to yours as equal to a "compulsive liar and adulterer" ?
Ever heard of a hand up rather than a handout ? Helping someone stand on their own two feet instead of reinforcing a welfare mentality ? Sure certain times and circumstances are cause for supporting your neighbour or countryman but they should be the exception , not the norm. If Joe and Jane sixpac say to themselves, screw that, we can't afford insurance on our house why should the broader society be expected to bail them out ? Now if they and their kid's are starving as a result, yeah sling them some food, but a new house or compensation because they "chose" to make that choice ? Supporting the bad decisions of some people only leads to a reinforcement of dependence and that in turn leads to a vicious circle of handouts not a hand up.
Yes I did actually. Here it is again. --This is where I responded-- I didn't say "duty" and I didn't say "right". I said it might be helpful. That does not imply obligation, more of a choice. Words are important, try and use the right ones please. Lying and adultering are not subjective behaviours, they have very precise definitions. Just to be clear: Lying is when you say something that isn't true, compulsive liars do this frequently. Adulterers are people who sleep with others when they are themselves married. Neither of these things are generally illegal. But they are immoral. Your comment: Does not make any sense at all.
Ummm I never said anything about handouts. Read my post 61. "Libertarians" are extremely self centred, selfish people.
You're very quick to advocate violence at the drop of a hat. I don't know how many times it's been explained that if something, be it a generator or medicine, is in high demand in a crisis and you need one, you're more likely to get one at the high price than you are at the normal price. Why? The people who have less need than you will sell the items out and then there's no opportunity for you to have one. The price signal of sent out of $500 medicine will bring more to market when at $100, the increased costs of just getting it into the crisis area may mean it's not worth transporting it. If this doesn't get you thinking then nothing we say on this matter will get through to you and we'll probably just stop trying, until next time.
$8 an hour? That's terribly exploitative. Sure it's not brain surgery, but Surprised anyone works for that little. Battered mac? Is that short for slimy mackerel? Where's the vomit icon? Don't you serve anything decent like John Dory or rock lobster?
SilverSaviour - are you a politician in your day job ? Let's try it again. What gives you the right to tell others what is moral and what is not ? Your only answer to this question was about liars and adulterers which just sidesteps the question it is rather hypocritical of a libertarian telling others what they should think.
I am happy if you all stop trying to get through to me that would be great. I think there are a few of you here that are big on theory but have not had a lot of life experience. I have seen first hand how these things play out, I would love to put a few of you in a real life situation where this stuff plays out and then just sit back and watch what happens. There is a reason why price gouging is illegal, the govt sees it as an issue that creates civil unrest, refer to my earlier post. Putting it simply when there is price gouging "people loose their sh@t". The govt is basically protecting the people who would price gouge from harm. You can say "that wouldn't happen" or "that shouldn't happen" ... I can tell you now if you put people in certain situations thing can turn very ugly very quickly. Then the govt has to try and get things back under control and it causes them problems. Governments do not like problems they like things to run as smooth as they can. The moral issue is a secondary issue, the govt makes it illegal to prevent civil unrest. It is not that hard to understand, well it should not be.
Where did I say anything about law enforcement or the justice system being privatised or my views on the subject. I have no idea how you can even link to that from what I posted.... I do not know why I respond to you, what experience have you had working with law enforcement, the justice system or the military for that matter? From what I have read I would say none and yet you have decided what should happen with Australia's law enforcement and Justice system? Why don't you restructure Australia's military over the weekend as well? Maybe you should write a White paper or restructure the tax system? My willingness to research and consider alternatives? You make it try to sound like you actually know what you are talking about when it is obvious you have absolutely no practical experience (or technical experience for that matter) in the subject. Did you read a book on it? You have no idea what I do for a living or my life experiences do you? I know what you don't do for a living. You sound like you read a lot which is not a bad thing, maybe open the door and walk outside and see what is happening outside in real life as well.
We've already answered your question. If you want to be part of a society with other human beings then there needs to be certain rules and, as mentioned earlier, those rules are simply around negative rights. All other morality that people talk about are around ways of living your life or with some people who do not actually have a rationally consistent position wanting to impose positive rights or allowing them get out of jail free cards to rob, threaten or kill others. (I don't care if you want to be an irrational person with no consistent moral foundation, just don't impose it on me.) Libertarians are for individual freedom. This includes the freedom of people to do some things that we and other people may disapprove of. A person should be free (from coercive interference) to do what he pleases with his own life and property, as long as he does not violate (through coercive interference) the same right of other peaceful persons to do what they want with their lives and properties. The second clause is logically implied in the first. Libertarians do not oppose non-coercive persuasion, educational efforts, private advertising campaigns, organized boycotts, or even social ostracism as means of trying to effect changes in the private behavior of others. What libertarians do oppose is the attempt by anyone (individuals or government officials) to impose their own views of "fairness" or personal morality on others through the initiation of the use of coercion, by either personal violence or political legislation and governmental action. This principled position sets libertarians apart from conservatives as well as other non-libertarians. Libertarians may or may not approve of some of the things that some people may do in private or in voluntary relations, but whatever their own code of personal moral conduct is, they do not seek to ban any private or voluntary activities by the use of force, including the force of government action. To do so would be to violate the very principle of individual rights of person and property. Real libertarians take individual rights seriously - seriously enough to consistently uphold them against the initiation of the use of force by anyone (including government) for any reason. If you want to be part of a peaceful society where you have the Freedom To <do whatever>, then you also need to have the Freedom From aggression by others. Libertarianism is a political philosophy, not a complete moral code. It prescribes certain minimal rules for living together in a peaceful, productive societyproperty, contract, and freedomand leaves further moral teaching to civil society. We do not want to proscribe what these morals are (but we are free to give our opinion). (With thanks to Sam Wells, Varg and David Boaz.)