On Sun, Aug 04, 2019 at 06:13:27PM -0300, Punk wrote: > On Sun, 4 Aug 2019 00:58:47 +0000 (UTC) > jim bell <[email protected]> wrote:
> > People wanted to be able to invest in a company, without the risk that if > > the company failed, they would be liable for not merely the money they > > invested, but for their entire worth as well. > > right, so called 'limited BY THE STATE libability'. A government > privilege. Liberalism is based on personal rights - life, liberty property. > "Limited liability" is not part of those rights. It's certainly not a "fundamental human right" to be able to invest in an entity representing a "collection of other humans" and have your liability limited to the amount you invested. But, it is a right to seek to manifest such a construct for the limitation of liability within a collection of individuals. How we achieve/manifest such a construct becomes the interesting question when we do away with the traditional state government. > > > side note : traditionally the vast majority of people who posed as > > libertarians wanted 'limited goverment' and so 'limited taxation' or > > 'limited theft'...which is of course still theft. > > > > I, too, was a 'minarchist libertarian' until January 1995, because I > > independently recognized the existence of that which David Friedman called > > "The Hard Problem": How would a libertarian or anarchist region (analogous > > to 'country') exist if it couldn't tax its own citizens to fund a defense? > > there's no such hard problem. > > Also, you're completly wrong in believing that > liberalism/libertarianism rests on 'expediency'. The state must be overthrown > because it's just a criminal organization, full stop, end of the story. It > doesn't fucking matter WHO WOULD PICK THE COTTON. > > And libertarians in the 19th century had already proposed systems in > which 'defense' was provided by private, VOLUNTARY associations. > > > > Ironically, I was the one to solve that problem, inventing/discovering my > > Assassination Politics idea. Now, not only is an anarchist region stable, > > in principle no region with a conventional government stable, since their > > government would shortly be taken down by just about everybody. > > And yet that hasn't happened. Maybe your system doesn't work? An idea like that, needs to become viral if it is to become a new dominant societal system. Perhaps AP has a lack of sufficient virality, or perhaps there's a lack of the required infrastructure - non de-anonymizable (i.e. truly anonymous) digital currencies? IDK. > >>> Merely having money, a lot of it, does not automatically make anyone 'the > >>> enemy'. Rather, it is how they obtained that money, the influence they > >>> exerted, perhaps by and through government, that's the problem. Get rid > >>> of the mechanism of using governments to obtain influence, that > >>> impropriety can and should disappear. > > > >> And in the real world we live in, ruled by CORPORATISM, the rich > >>obtained their money thanks to the government. This is the ABC of > >>libertarianism. If you don't believe me I suggest you look at the evidence > >>: > > > > > Then a good solution is to eliminate the government(s) that corporations > > can/do use to obtain power. > > Right. Meanwhile some people should stop pretending that corporations > are not part of the government and FULLY LIABLE for their crimes and the > crimes of their partners, the government. I think you missed Bell's point - libertarians don't give up a concept simply because that concept is currently misused, or can be misused - a bit like giving up guns and knives because they get misused. The "collection of entrepreneurs investing in a common outcome within a construct which limits their liability to the amount of their investment" is one such concept. That's how I read it anyway...
