It would actually, entire communities would hire these private security firms just as many communities today hire private security for gated communities, the free rider problem would be worked out through dominant assurance contracts.
He would still have liability the same as if your brakes fail and you accidently ram into the car in front of you you still assume liability.
He would still be protected by the security firms which were hired through dominant assurance contracts to police the community. He would technically be a free rider but again the free rider problem would be solved through dominant assurance contracts.
Then he'll have to find another means of transportation. FYI we already have toll roads in this country, except the money goes to the state and the citizenry still had to pay the taxes to build the road in the first place not to mention they are paying for roads that they have not and may never even use.
Actually we didn't have an advanced market economy in the 1800's so if anything it has a better chance of working.
Since you insist I give you the ruling from Warren v. District of Columbia, "fundamental principle of American law that a government and its agents are under no general duty to provide public services, such as police protection, to any individual citizen." An expansion of the original South v. Maryland case. Are you sure you really want to continue with this since my statement is true?
This is why I never could stand the libertarian party. Unrealistic expectations.
And then they wonder why they are seen as a joke by the other parties.
It can't work in our society, and it never will or happen. It is fantasy.
That implies then that the individual is responsible. It does not dictate it. This ruling, as in South v. Maryland does nothing by indicate that the police are not liable if they do not or refuse to protect you. Same result as before. Your statement is an implication, not a fact.
Libertarians... extreme ones, tend to argue from theoretical positions, not recognizing the connections between all things. Mostly, their positions are not based in reality.
This is why I never could stand the libertarian party. Unrealistic expectations.
And then they wonder why they are seen as a joke by the other parties.
It can't work in our society, and it never will or happen. It is fantasy.
Well, it would help if you could identify what makes one a libertarian. I'm not a libertarian, since I'm a Constitutionalist. A very strict one at that. My positions are based upon reality and historical fact.
It states it because the police or other government services are not there to provide service to any one individual. That leaves only the individual themself to provide for their protection. In any event, the government is not there to provide any service, but it is up to the individual to ensure for their own safety and protection of their property even when many Constitutions say that the chief design of good government is to secure the rights and property of the people. You can twist it all you like and ignore the other party involved in these suits brought before the Supreme Court. I frankly don't care.
Yes, because we all know that without the government at every level being involved in your life and making decisions for you is such a terrible thing to contemplate. :roll:
I heavily disagree with the concept of corporate personhood, so i would disagree with your statement. Furthermore, you can twist words all you want, but the fact of the matter is that you have an avenue to change the legal conditions of taxation, something you would not have if you were a slave. Also, if you're trying to claim that taxation makes us slave, then it would be nigh impossible to live in an organized society and not be a slave. Every government save a few unrealistic utopian experiments have had some form of taxation, and if the principle of taxation makes us slaves, it doesn't matter if the rate is 1%, 99%, or every third chicken.The United States government is a corporation, which under corporate law does make it a person. Therefore, the government as a person does have absolute power and controls his life, liberty, or fortune. Thus, under said definition it is slavery.
You're in for a shock then because the courts have ruled that it is your responsibility to defend your property from thieves and fire. The government is under no obligation to defend those things. I'll cite South v. Maryland (1853) where the Supreme Court ruled that the police do not have to protect you or your property because it is your responsibility.
Well, it would help if you could identify what makes one a libertarian. I'm not a libertarian, since I'm a Constitutionalist. A very strict one at that. My positions are based upon reality and historical fact.
So people shouldn't be expected (or even feel obligated) to contribute to the future of their country (i.e. the children of this country)?
Am I the only one who finds it funny that the guy with a confederate flag on his avatar is whining about "slavery"?
Why? The confederate flag is not a symbol of slavery to the educated.
Why? The confederate flag is not a symbol of slavery to the educated.
I am curious about what you mean by educated then. I am pretty sure I can find a professor of African-American studies with a Ph.D. and some very strong opinions about that symbol.
I 100% disagree with the confederacy in believing that slavery was up to each individual state. Each man is created equal and has equal protection under the constitution at the national level. No man can be the property of another man.
But the confederacy believed it was the states' rights. The war was about states' rights.
The confederacy was created to promote states' rights against the federal government and that's what the flag represents historically, to the educated man.
They were wrong in this particular instance, yes. But overall, their philosophy was not to fight for slavery. It was to fight for their property (that they had grossly mislabeled).
I 100% disagree with the confederacy in believing that slavery was up to each individual state. Each man is created equal and has equal protection under the constitution at the national level. No man can be the property of another man.
But the confederacy believed it was the states' rights. The war was about states' rights. The confederacy was created to promote states' rights against the federal government and that's what the flag represents historically, to the educated man. They were wrong in this particular instance, yes. But overall, their philosophy was not to fight for slavery. It was to fight for their property (that they had grossly mislabeled).
I don't think there is a good distinction to be made here. If a state is doing something wrong, than it is wrong, period, no argument about states rights is going to convince me to ignore it.
Notice that I said stop making an income
No income no income taxes
And you can live without earning money,
Buy about 500 acres and farmstead. You wont have electricity, a computer or a car but you will live
Why? The confederate flag is not a symbol of slavery to the educated.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?