Labour's smoking ban killed the British pub

[MyUserName]

Give it a rest old bean. You're obsessed with violence like MUN is with amputees.

Erm ... what?

[SpontaneousOrder]

Give it a rest old bean. You're obsessed with violence like MUN is with amputees.

So I'm right then? You could just have some intellectual honesty and admit it rather than trying to fob me off with some kind of thinly disguised ad hom bomb.

I'm not obsessed with violence - you're obsessed with trying to pretend it isn't there (you started this branch off the thread).
I'm just promoting the idea of free market solutions to problems as a far superior and efficient solution.

[SpontaneousOrder]

Hmmm, inneresting point but I think you'll find that there was a civil service there to maintain the status quo created by - yup, you've got it - a government.

Stick a load of people on a desert island. What's one of the first things that is going to happen? A committee will be formed to decide on how things are going to be run. A government , of sorts. Actually, more likely 2 committees will be formed and in due course both will be on opposing sides and war will ensue. But, I digress.

My whole point is - and one or two of you don't seem to be able to grasp this - that there are degrees of libertarianism. Just because I don't like the excessive interference of the state into what I consider private matters, it doesn't mean I don't want there to be law and order, hospitals and roads etc maintained by the state (I'm open minded about the alternatives though). But (dare I say it) Doogie seems to think that because I have a libertarian bent then I should not support the concept of any state sponsored services at all.

Well, some people like to be able to put others in a certain box, but I'm afraid you can't do that with me because my world ain't so black and white.

So you prefer to ignore difficult questions too? You're no better than doogie who you're perfectly happy to slate. You've not provided any more philosophically grounded evidence or reasoning than he has, yet you slate him as if he is being unreasonable.

[Mich the Tester]

Do you know what the biggest problem is with full on no compromise libertarians? It's not the ideals, the sometimes unsympathetic reasoning or the apparent lack of care for those less fortunate; it's that they bang on so much and are so bloody boring.

[d000hg]

So I'm right then?

You are saying that the only way authority works is if it is backed - ultimately - by fear of physical pain?

For example If I speed I'll get a ticket -> if I refuse to pay my fine I'll get a bigger fine -> if I don't pay they'll rescind my license -> if I ignore this and drive anyway I could be taken to court -> if I refuse to go to court I could be arrested -> if I refuse to be arrested I ultimately have to be taken in using force? Is that what you mean by "ultimately backed by violence"? Because I don't think people pay parking/speeding fines for fear of being beaten up by the rozzers...

Please clear this up unambigiously once and for all so we can make sure to try and dismantle what you're really claiming, rather than giving you the chance to worm your way with twisting words.

[SpontaneousOrder]

Do you know what the biggest problem is with full on no compromise libertarians? It's not the ideals, the sometimes unsympathetic reasoning or the apparent lack of care for those less fortunate; it's that they bang on so much and are so bloody boring.

That feels like a healthy dose of projection there.
Principled 'libertarians' tend to simply point out that a market solution would work better than a violent one, and then end up just responding to a torrent of inane ramblings about how government/tax/ prohibition is NOT violent - inane ramblings that are impossible to validate, at which point they pull out the ad homs and convince themselves that its the other guy that is obsessively banging on.

Which is more obsessive - stating a simple truth?, or inventing a load of convoluted half-baked reasoning to try to appear correct?

It's especially ironic considering that 70% of the general forum is rammed full of people bemoaning the policies of tptb.

[SpontaneousOrder]

You are saying that the only way authority works is if it is backed - ultimately - by fear of physical pain?

For example If I speed I'll get a ticket -> if I refuse to pay my fine I'll get a bigger fine -> if I don't pay they'll rescind my license -> if I ignore this and drive anyway I could be taken to court -> if I refuse to go to court I could be arrested -> if I refuse to be arrested I ultimately have to be taken in using force? Is that what you mean by "ultimately backed by violence"? Because I don't think people pay parking/speeding fines for fear of being beaten up by the rozzers...

Please clear this up unambigiously once and for all so we can make sure to try and dismantle what you're really claiming, rather than giving you the chance to worm your way with twisting words.

Yes. If there is no threat of force, then paying a parking fine is optional.

[d000hg]

Where do you stand on schools using corporal punishment? (nearly typed corporeal which would be surreal)

[original PM]

Yes. If there is no threat of force, then paying a parking fine is optional.

But what you are saying is that in general if people are not watched they will behave like children and do what they want.

Whereas in actual fact a responsible adult does not park in the wrong place so does not get a ticket.

[d000hg]

But what you are saying is that in general if people are not watched they will behave like children and do what they want.

Whereas in actual fact a responsible adult does not park in the wrong place so does not get a ticket.

Yes but SO says (I think) we don't park badly because we'd get in trouble, that our sense of responsibility is merely wanting to avoid bad things happening rather than a conscience. And that even if you were somewhere where bad parking wasn't punished, you are by then socially conditioned not to do it.