Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Who determines what is who's or who's property? Who's the third party to declare one's property? What if there's a dispute between two parties over a piece of land? Who's going to intervene and make the agreement and stipulations of a given property?
That is where the state comes into use. An anarchy will only result into havoc. Just look at Somali or any other country where government institutions are inadequate.
People can still have third parties to arbitrate. Govt is just corporations, just with slightly different rules. Not having govt or corporations hardly would equate to havoc. There is no logic or basis for this assumption.
Corporations are fictional entities designed to engage in commerce. They by design create a veil and limited liability.
With out that you are left with what? Personal liability and responsibility.
People can still have third parties to arbitrate. Govt is just corporations, just with slightly different rules. Not having govt or corporations hardly would equate to havoc. There is no logic or basis for this assumption.
Corporations are fictional entities designed to engage in commerce. They by design create a veil and limited liability.
With out that you are left with what? Personal liability and responsibility.
The problem with corporations is that conflict of interest would play a role. Government plays a neutral part. Yes, there is a conflict of interest in government, but that's only when there is a private motive involved on the behalf of lobbying, which corporations are the mastermind.
The problem with corporations is that conflict of interest would play a role. Government plays a neutral part. Yes, there is a conflict of interest in government, but that's only when there is a private motive involved on the behalf of lobbying, which corporations are the mastermind.
I don't think you read what I wrote. Govt *IS* a corporation. As to neutrality, there is no evidence that this has ever been the purpose of govt.
The problem with corporations is that conflict of interest would play a role. Government plays a neutral part. Yes, there is a conflict of interest in government, but that's only when there is a private motive involved on the behalf of lobbying, which corporations are the mastermind.
There are tons of conflicts of interest in governments.
Politicians will promise in one speech in one part of the country one thing and turn around and promise something entirely different in another.
The problem with corporations is that conflict of interest would play a role. Government plays a neutral part. Yes, there is a conflict of interest in government, but that's only when there is a private motive involved on the behalf of lobbying, which corporations are the mastermind.
What evidence is there that a corporation will violate private property rights?
Hell, you ever notice when one gets caught dumping chemicals or something like that it is almost always on public property. Usually a river or something.
Where are you likely to see more litter? On public property or private? You're even expected to litter on some private property. A movie theater is a good example of this. And the business cleans it right away. How long does litter stay around on public property? Days? Weeks? No incentive to remove pollution form public property while there is every motivation to do it on private.
Proving once again that it is because of government there is a problem, not from a lack of it.
I don't think you read what I wrote. Govt *IS* a corporation. As to neutrality, there is no evidence that this has ever been the purpose of govt.
Government is not a corporation. It's an entity. Corporations have one sole purpose, and that's to maximize profit for their shareholders. Government has a vested interest in the sanctity of society. There are tons of things it's involved in that corporations have no interest to dabble in as there isn't any market value in the virtues of government.
A question better posed to South Carolina when they fired upon Fort Sumter.
The war from the Lincoln's perspective wasn't to end slavery, something that he clearly felt he was Constitutionally prohibited from doing, but to end an insurrection which the Constitution clearly authorizes the government to do.
Article I, Section 8, line 15;
To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;
I swear that if given the citizen test libertarians would fail and fail miserably.
If you are trying to teach me that Lincoln wasn't an abolitionist...teach me something I don't know already. Please.
Government is not a corporation. It's an entity. Corporations have one sole purpose, and that's to maximize profit for their shareholders. Government has a vested interest in the sanctity of society. There are tons of things it's involved in that corporations have no interest to dabble in as there isn't any market value in the virtues of government.
Wrong...Government has an interest in maintaining power...
The example you just laid out for government is the equivalent of you saying "Corporations are only interested in providing the best quality for the consumer"
And we know you clearly do not hold that position.
There are tons of things corporations do not dabble in because they CANNOT. Corporations do not have the power of coercion (unless granted by the state in the form of monopolies) and they do not have the final resort of murder.
Ask Lincoln.
Last edited by Hot_Handz; 07-07-2013 at 08:37 AM..
There is nothing in the Civil Rights Act of 1964 that forces anyone to "socially" associate with one another. What the Act does, is prohibit discrimination if those areas that prohibit government discrimination in the rights and privileges of all citizens, to wit, to work, and to avail themselves of all services open to the public.
You can have your segregated churches, social clubs, family reunions, or anything else that you choose to do within a private organization. You can even discriminate to your hearts content in any activity that does not engage in interstate commerce.
The ignorance of libertarians simply knows no bounds.
Privately held companies cannot discriminate....you are wrong.
Privately held companies cannot discriminate....you are wrong.
They did in the 19th century.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
