Quote from: fergalish on August 31, 2011, 09:50:51 PM

So then... some group of people, somehow sharing ownership of some property, get together and collectively decide the rules that all owners of any part of that property should follow. What if you don't agree? Are you somehow restricted from using your property as you wish so? I'll leave you to complete the thought.

That depends on the nature of the ownership. Since property can only be homesteaded by a single individual. At some point, all shared property will have once been owned by a single person. When ownership is first becoming shared it will be decided how it will be managed, by unanimous vote or majority vote.

Quote from: fergalish on August 31, 2011, 09:50:51 PM

Suppose, let's continue with the lake analogy, that you don't dump your toxic chemicals in the lake, because you don't agree with the vote. You just dump at the edge of your land, close to the edge of the lake. Rain, of course, washes it into the soil, and it leeches into the lake. Now what?

You're responsible for the damage caused. It's still the case that railroad cars emit sparks that land on other people's property and causes fires. The government doesn't allow them to be sued as long as they follow regulations and have spark suppressors. That wasn't always the case and wouldn't be the case otherwise.

Quote from: fergalish on August 31, 2011, 09:50:51 PM

And what if it's unowned? You didn't say what happens then. If property can be unowned, who decides the rules for appropriate behaviour thereon? Vote again? By who, the whole world? What about the drunk driver example, but on an unowned road.

There are no rules on unowned land other than the default rule of non-aggression. I can't shoot you or slam into your car at high speed. I can drive drunk if I want to though.

Quote from: fergalish on August 31, 2011, 09:50:51 PM

You keep just pushing the boat out. Health issues like this can take *years* to come to light, long after the damage has been done, and long after any hope of recourse has vanished. Same problem now, I agree, but libertarianism is not an improvement.

It's not an improvement in that one regard. It is, however, based on moral behavior of non-aggression and it puts a mechanism in place, market forces, that tends to give people what they want at certain price.

Quote from: fergalish on August 31, 2011, 09:50:51 PM

So, while I walk into town to do my shopping, I'll have to stop every few hundred yards along the road to pay a toll, carefully read the terms & conditions, then enter each shop one after the other, again reading the terms and conditions of each shop.... a never ending stream of terms and conditions... Huh

?? Dude, have you *ever* read the ENTIRE terms & conditions of a website you signed up to? The schools in this libertarian world are gonna be so damn rich, 'cos everyone's gonna have to be a lawyer to wade their way through all the paperwork involved with just doing the damn shopping. Never mind if you actually wanna *do* something. Shiiiiit, that's just so far beyond ridiculous that I find it hard to believe you're not just debating for the fun of it.

It's unlikely that would be the case. Remember, different shopping centers are competing. Let's say you open a shopping center like that and since it's the only one in town everyone just suffers through it. Being a smart guy, I get investors to help me build a new shopping center with a standardized set of terms and conditions where you have roads that are paid for by a monthly membership fee. I'll make a fortune by attracting people to my new and convenient shopping center. If you had some bizarre terms and conditions like allowing the the staff to hunt customers for sport, you can be sure that information would spread far and fast. Then nobody would go there because you'd be out of business. That's the brilliant thing about competition. It puts a limit on the kinds of things that business can get away with. If the price and service don't match. People will go elsewhere, attracted by other businesses trying to make a profit by being better.

Quote from: fergalish on August 31, 2011, 09:50:51 PM

Since right now roads are public property, we could assume the businesses are there first, before the road becomes private.

Yes, the transition from public to private would be different than if it was private from the start. Ideally, whatever solution we come up would be something close to how it would be if it was always private. Perhaps we can give all the businesses a share in the roads and they can vote how they are maintained or vote to sell them to the highest bidder. It's definitely something to consider but not a huge obstacle.

Quote from: fergalish on August 31, 2011, 09:50:51 PM

You mean like a thousand, or a million RFID chips on your bumper - one for each road-owner. And now you also have to walk to some road-owner offices, blow into a breathalyser, then walk back home and you can start driving. And what, are there barriers and breathalysers between each section of road?

I doubt that would be the case. Remember, road owners are trying to make it convenient, not inconvenient. There could be maybe three or four different chips and all the roads use them as a clearing house. I don't know how breathalysers would work. That's ultimately something that the market would settle on. Look at it like this. Let's say that shoes were made by the government and then I suggest they are privatized. Then you have many questions.

"Who will make the shoes? How much will they cost? What styles will be available? Where will I buy them? What sizes will they be in?"

The response is, I don't know, honestly. I can give you some ideas but ultimately it will be the market that decides all of that. Which it has, obviously, since we don't buy our shoes from the government.

Quote from: fergalish on August 31, 2011, 09:50:51 PM

But all you want is that drivers be punished for their irresponsible behaviour. Road owners still won't be punished. Oh sorry, people will prefer to go *the long way* to work every morning because the rules are more strict and people don't die so much. Yeah, sure, 'cos people have *loads* of time to spare to take the long way when they drive places. And loads of spare time to read terms and conditions too.

You're not thinking three dimensionally. Don't like the current road owner? Think you can do better? Tunnel under it. Build on top of it. If that doesn't work and you don't want to go a different way to work then you must not care that much. If the conditions aren't bad enough to add 10 or 20 minutes to your commute, how bad are they?

Quote from: fergalish on August 31, 2011, 09:50:51 PM

bitcoin2cash, for a while I thought that libertarianism could somehow be a noble enterprise, with grand possibilities for improving the human condition. As you paint it, it's a goddamn hell, full of uncertainties where anyone, anywhere, anytime, can just change the rules as they see fit because it's their property.

"Timid men prefer the calm of despotism to the tempestuous sea of liberty." -Thomas Jefferson

Freedom can be a scary idea. I won't lie to you. But if I own property, isn't that how it should be? Isn't that what ownership is all about? If I own a house and you tell me I can't wear shoes inside or smoke in it, how exactly is it my house?

Quote from: fergalish on August 31, 2011, 09:50:51 PM

Well, in your libertarian shit-hole, it seems anyone can do just exactly that, and you'd probably agree to it too, because the 100th time you crossed the town square to get to the supermarket, you decided not the re-read the small print at the end of the terms & conditions.

Come on, we wouldn't throw informed consent out of the window. If you don't like the terms and conditions then you can leave. If you can make a reasonable argument that you were unaware of them you can still leave. We would recognize the difference between buying a ticket to a mall and becoming a slave vs. signing a contract three times, with witnesses and a recording of your declaration that you wish to become a slave.

Quote from: fergalish on August 31, 2011, 09:50:51 PM

You two are *by far* the worst proponents of libertarianism I've ever come across, either on this forum or elsewhere. I'm done here.

I'm not trying to con you into becoming a libertarian. I'm not a salesman. I'm trying to accurately describe how libertarianism would work. If you don't like my answers then you probably don't like libertarianism. However, there is a chance you might find better answers elsewhere though I doubt it. If you don't like what I've said, you're probably not ready for this ideology. Good luck to you and thanks for the conversation.