If I can get a ballot, I am voting for Libertarian Gary Johnson. He would pull all the troops (Iraq, Afghanistan, Korea, Germany, Japan, etc.) home right away and stop the drone strikes. That's enough for me. How do Democrats or Republicans expect people to believe in their government, when their government continues to murder innocent civilians in other countries?
Ah, so no matter what happens, the police are the ones initiating force, even if specifically requested by someone else. That's a convenient excuse, but they only act on the request of someone else, so I'd personally think the person pulling the trigger is responsible, not the bullet. As I would think the caller of the police more responsible for the initiation of violence than the police, even if the police are the actual actors, they are constrained in their choices and abilities.
If you consider calling the government to settle a contract dispute, yes Joe is the initiator of force. By your words, if Bob had called the government settle an anti-discrimination law dispute, then Bob would have been the initiator of force.
That's how it is almost always described to me, but when I restate that as "rich have more rights" I get complaints and objections.
"The rich have more rights" highly depends on what you think 'rights' are and how 'rights' work. This mis communication of 'rights' between you and others is probably where most of the complaints and objections arise.
There is a whole spectrum of libertarian ideas out there, not just 'initiators of force people.' You may enjoy these folks here: http://bleedingheartlibertarians.com/
Holy crap! Just like the Ds and Rs, there is a spread of thought in the LP. They are not all Ayn Rand assholes.
This is where I think libertarians are full of it. That land is in turn granted to the "owner" by the government. That's right, who records the deed showing Joe's ownership? Who would Joe expect to come defend his property against a roving band of criminals? Who is expected the intervene should there be a legal dispute over the ownership (Let's say Larry shows up and says Joe is full of crap, I own this land...).
Libertarians are not anarchists. Most libertarians believe in limited government not the absence of government. Libertarians start the framework of government at the individual's level because without individuals there is no government. Most likely the government would record the Joe's ownership of the land. I assume Joe pays taxes because he called the police. Again assume Joe payed his taxes, the government would intervene. Ownership is nine tenths of the law.
Since the government is ultimately granting property rights and recognition, there are some meta-laws Joe has to accept. After all, he can't run a child slavery ring or kill people on "his" land. One of those meta-laws is not discriminating. If Joe doesn't like those rules, fuck him for being a scumbag but in general, the correct thing Joe should do is either declare his independence and dare the government to come blow his ass up, or move the fuck away to some remote island or third-world shit hole where he can pay off rival warlords to guard his property.
Either there are laws or there are not laws, there is no meta-law. If it were within the legal framework of the government, Joe could run a child slavery ring. I'm pretty sure flat out killing is outlawed in most countries. The correct thing for Joe to do is quit being an idiot. Regardless of the color of your skin, US money all spends the same.
I keep hearing "whoever initiates force is wrong" and the point of the government is to be a framework to resolve contract disputes, as well as step in after someone initiates force against someone else.
Joe calls the police and requests he [Bob] be arrested for trespass.
Logic indicates that Joe invited the public (including Bob) in, and throwing him [Bob] out is the initiation of force.
I am trying to answer your question, but you have Joe doing two different things in your story.
If Joe throws Bob out of the cafe, Joe initiated force. And without a context of rights or laws, we do not know if Joe can do this with in the framework of government.
If Joe calls the government (the police) to settle a contract dispute, the government will determine the outcome. If the law dictates Joe must serve Bob, then the government has initiated the force to make Joe cook Bob a meal. If the law dictates that Bob must leave the cafe, then the government has initiated the force to throw Bob out of Joe's cafe. In this case, I assume there's some sort of law the government decide upon and the outcomes are reasonable.
Libertarians holding to the "whoever initiates force is wrong" is a bit silly because the context of the initiation in the framework of the standing government is important. Murdering some one with your car because the person jumped out in front of your car is different than planning to murder and murdering some one because you think the person sneezes too loudly. The intentions of the murderer are paramount to the sentence.
Though one person did send me a link to a youtube video that explains that you can't have personal freedom without property, and it's the personal freedom that is the basis of property, but no explanation of why it works out that personal freedom on someone else's property is determined, in part, but the owner of that property. That circularly comes back to the freedom coming not from personal freedom, but from the property itself.
The act of owning the property is key. If you hop on top of my car while I am in it. I would ask you to get off my car because you are on my property. Your personal freedom is determined by the owner because you do not own the car. I have spent my labor earnings on said car, you have not. We have not entered into a contract verbal or written which states that you may hop on my car.
BTW: There is no true "Libertarian," just like there is no true "Scotsman."
What is your definition of 'a right?' What 'rights' of Bob's are being violated? Does Bob have the right to be served a meal by Joe?
If Joe just told Bob that Bob wouldn't be served. At the end of the night, Bob refused to leave Joe's restaurant. What should Joe do?
Another way: The open cafe is an open contract. Bob walking into the store is counter offering Joe's contract to buy a meal. Joe rejects the counter offer of Bob and tells Bob to take a hike. Bob insists that Joe accept his counter offer and refuses to leave. Joe then calls the police because Bob's counter offer has been rejected and Bob is now trespassing.
If Bob were a christian, he might listen to that christ guy. "If anyone will not welcome you or listen to your words, well fuck'em." Matthew 10:14
More like the PIIGS in europe.
Milwaukee to Detroit? Indy to Louisville? If these were profitable or even good ideas, they would have already been done. Do you think there's even the population density to support those routes?
I think the idea is that the employer wants cheaper health insurance.
I would say this is why decoupling the link between health insurance and employment is necessary. Next my glucose levels will be tested to make sure I'm not at risk for diabetes.
In some societies, the concept that we are our brothers' keeper is very strong.
OT: That god character wasn't angry at Cain for not being his "brother's keeper," god was pissed because Cain flat fucking lied to an omniscient being. Double or nothing in a modern fairy tale: Cain would say "He's fucking dead because I was jealous." That god character would be all like "Dude, you kind of suck at yo job. That's why I was being so hard on you. Maybe you should pick a different profession. Also, get fuck out of the garden. How hard is it not to kill people?"
Anyways, I would like it if people quit using that phrase to mean "I need control of your life. Now shut the fuck up and give me a urine sample."
I think I've had too much coffee.
Most religious folks with which I have spoken seem only to care that the LGBT community does not get to call it marriage because to them marriage is a religious term. The LGBT community wants nothing to do with the religious definition and only wants the privileges the state bestows to H couples. I think a lot of religious types think the LGBT is trying to subvert their religion by using the term marriage.
I see two solutions to this issue.
The profit motive works fine, but the current incentives for profit are mis-aligned against the consumer (you). Most consumers have a third party (your employer) paying their medical bills. The consumer now only worries about the co-pay, instead of the actual cost. Third parties receive large tax breaks for large policies. The product provider ( insurance companies) caters only to the third party, wether the consumer gets qaulity service is no longer the provider's concern. The provider is now only concerned with appeasing the third party. Costs now will never decrease because microtransactions (procedure costs) are no longer being negotiated by the actual consumer with the product provider. I offer lasik as example of the consumer cutting the cost of a microtransaction.
I think the key to good healthcare reform is to slowly decouple the employed/heathcare link. Unfortunately, the PPACA only increases this unnatural market link and bring the consumer back in the loop.
I miss my Telegraph Citizen Bill of Rights.
I had forgotten that government is in charge of producing all ideas. Angry Birds, as we all forget, was government funded project to create fun for children.
I do somewhat agree with your description of coercion is government.
Well, it seems no government and a fully authoritarian government seem to have very little to do with wealth.
HELP!!!! I'm being held prisoner in /usr/games/lib!
