An Honest and Accurate libertarian Discussion Thread

Is it?

 

Society, which is bigger and more powerful than any individual, makes sure he sees a day in court.

 

Representative? Do you mean as in a power of attorney?

 

Ah, so society then initiates force against someone in violation of the NAP.

 

Not really. Society ensures that those who agress against the property of others are held accountable.

 

But the rich guy has more money and can simply buy off enough of society that any attempts would fail.

 

One guy has more money than all of society?

 

All of society is going to illogically band together against individual economic interest for accusations that haven’t been verified?

 

Society will enforce its rules. Right?

 

If society was a monolith and a hive mind that all marched in lockstep, but since that has never been true, society with be factionalized and the person with more money and influence will be able to play the factions off each other and win.

 

It sounds like your describing the current state of affairs.

 

It sounds like I’m describing every human society in history where there was income inequality. In a libertarian society, any regulations that limit the power of the rich to throw their money around and do whatever they wanted wouldn’t exist. It would be even more extreme than it is now.

 

Libertarianism is as utopian an ideology as Progressivism.

Government, nor man, can deliver utopia because your utopia is not my utopia.

 

A society of libertarians would not permit a criminal (rich or otherwise) to violate the person or property of his neighbors. I think you're talking about a society of statists.

 

And how would they prevent that? Remember perfect knowledge wouldn’t exist in the real world. All you would have would be accusations that a rich criminal violated a person or their property. So the rich guy uses his superior access to influence and wealth to ensure the unequal imperfect knowledge of society plays out on his side.

 

Are you asserting that in a society of libertarians judges and juries would be less competent than in a society or statists? Or are you stating that a society of libertarians wouldn't have laws against jury tampering or bribing judges? That seems unlikely.

 

What right does a libertarian society have to stop a judge or jury from engaging in private economic transactions with a person?

 

If the deal involves the judge or jury member violating his obligation to administer justice, then a society of libertarians has every right to prevent and punish such acts.

 

It qualifies as an act of coercion.

 

Obligation? Sounds like force to me. BTW, how are they going to prove such acts occurred when there isn't any requirement to disclose finances (something that would require regulation)?

 

That qualifies as an act of coercion, in which you would have a claim against the judge and/or jury in question.

One thing you seem to miss though- the ridiculously rich and powerful of today was only able to arrive at their status because government aided them.

 

You again show your lack of understanding of libertarianism. Not all force is unjustified. Only the initiation of force against innocent people.

So let's say a society of libertarians has a system of electing judges and soliciting jurors. And the condition is that if the judge or juror violates his voluntarily accepted obligation to unbiased administration of justice then he will be considered an aggressor. It would not be a violation of the NAP to punish a judge for corruption, since he violates his voluntary obligation that he promised to society.

Why couldn't a society of libertarians require that their judges disclose finances?

 

Why would someone want to be a judge in a society where being a judge puts them at an economic disadvantage to everyone else (being required to disclose their finances when others aren’t)?

 

Why would anyone volunteer to rush into a burning building to save someone?