Zachary Young

Without income inequality we would all be very poor indeed. What I don't understand is some people think we should all suffer, rather than see some excel more than others. Egalitarians would rather hurt the poor, so long as they don't help the rich, than have us all prosper.

Hate speech should be allowed as should "inciting violence". It is EXACTLY unpopular opinions that need protecting. There should be no limitations on free speech. Ultimately it comes down to property rights. If someone doesn't want you saying something in their home, or on their business, they have a right to kick you out. But the government should never say that you cannot say x, because it's offensive or for whatever reason.

If a business doesn't want to let anyone set foot on their property, that is their right. The idea that someone must be forced by the government to let someone else into their home is absurd.

bloodyminded : The point isn't to make the criminal suffer. The point is to help the victim. Why do you want to inflict suffering on people? Why are you not concerned with helping out the person who has been harmed? Let's say you have a judge that will always convict for the plaintiff. Well no one is going to take this judge seriously. If the judge is unfair no one will pay any attention to his verdict. No one would agree to arbitration under him. The most desired judges would be those who are the most fair. But the system of justice I imagine would be far different from what we have now. It wouldn't be merely a private system which mimicks the current socialist system. Rather, most justice would be handled vigallante style. If you hurt someone, they would probably just hurt you back, and no one would care.

Criminals who are unable to pay restitution should be forced into involuntary servitude with the proceeds going to their victim. It's amusing that you justify what the state did to me - I guess some will stop at no lengths to apologize away the sins of the state. The government had no business telling me where I should be at what time. It's a shame that we have all become so complacent that we accept any state dictate no matter how unnecessary or absurd. The only real crime is one that has a victim. There was no reason for me to go to court in the first place. I hadn't hurt anyone. On the other hand I was greatly injured by having my liberty taken away from me. You clearly have never experienced first hand the system of injustice or you would not be so blithe about it. Being locked in a cage for a month is a very serious offence. How would you like it if someone locked you in a cage for a month? Can you imagine a grosser violation of liberty? The problem with our society is we have far too many laws. Far too many things are crimes. People who hurt others, people who damage others property, they are criminals and should be dealt with harshly. But if there is no victim there should be no crime.

"Well the govt does no such thing." The CHRC does nothing but this.

No one wins the GOP's nomination without being prolife. Ron Paul is in this to win it, and it's amazing how much support a voluntarist can get. He is without a doubt the best American politician since Taft.

The last thing we need is higher taxes on our rich. The more money the government has the less freedom we as a society have.

I don't have any children, and I agree with your point. People that have kids should pay for their own damn schooling, not force me to pay for it. Actually the public school system is terrible. That's what happens when you have a government monopoly. We are still using the same outdated system the Prussians invented! If we had a free market in schools you would see dynamic education. Schools would innovate in an effort to attract customers. Instead of having a centralized model where every student in the entire province is taught the same manner teachers and parents would have real input and we would try dozens or hundreds of different models and find what works best. The current education system is a joke - we should privatize it fully immediately.

The point is restitution for the victim. Yes, I would rather see the person who get hurt benefit with monetary compensation than see the criminal hurt. My concern is entirely with the victim. They got assaulted, raped, whatever - they deserve to have their situation improved. With the status quo they are not only first attacked by the criminal they are then attacked by the state which demands they pay taxation for the dubious honour of seeing their assailant chased down and punished. If you don't want to suffer from indentured slavery, you shouldn't rob or beat people. I have no sympathy for those who use violence against others or their property. The real travesty in my case was that I had not done anything wrong. All I did was not show up for a probation meeting, and then not show up for court. Those aren't real crimes. It's being tardy. What the state did to me, incarcerating me for a month, locking me in a cage, that is the real crime. It's kidnapping. Forcible confinement. But of course the government is allowed to do anything it wants and there's no recourse because they are the government. In my society there wouldn't be any rulers. Just people interacting voluntarily. Private courts would have a huge incentive to give anyone a fair shake, because fairness would be their stock in trade. There would be competition. The best judges, the one who most thoroughly analyze a situation would be the most sought after. The ones who are corrupt, well no one would want to go them. But it's impossible to get a fair shake in our current system. Let's imagine you and I make an arrangement that I will mow your lawn for $10. But let's give me the power of arbitrage over any dispute we have. YOu pay me the $10 and tomorrow you come out and see your lawn is not mowed. So you complain to me and I rule in my favour, saying perhaps that I will mow your lawn 50 years from now. An organization with a monopoly on arbitrage will use that in their favour.

Let's not be fooled by this idea that simply because the government currently provides a service that is the only way it can possibly be provided. Just because I am against the government having a monopoly on roads, schools etc. doesn't mean i am against roads and schools. It means I think there are more efficient and moral means of allocating scarce resources than government fiat. Let's get real. Socialism doesn't work. It didn't work in the USSR, it didn't work in China, it doesn't work in Cuba and it's not going to work here in Canada. The market economy does work. And it works for everyone. ANd it works a heck of a lot more efficiently than some government bureaucracy.

Look - if you people like CBC, then that's fine. Once we privatize it you can pay them for the service. But why should you be able to steal money from me in order to support programming that you enjoy and I don't watch? That's not fair at all. Why are you trying to get stuff for free? Why don't you stop mooching off other people and pay for the stuff you want, and let us pay for the stuff we want, instead of trying to use the government to force us to subsidize stuff that you want? If you wanted groceries would you go out and point a gun at your neighbour and say 'give me $5 so I can buy some watermelon'?

"You should know I can tell you to shut up and it does nothing to limit your freedom of expression. " I agree. On the other hand, the government giving out fines, and telling people if you do not stop saying things you will go to jail absolutely DOES threaten my freedom of expression. The 'free' in 'free expression' means 'free from government interference'.

But there wouldn't really be "arrests" and "jails". If someone commits and assault or burgarly, they would have to pay back the victim. So if you steal $1000 you will have to pay back $3000. If you do not have the money you will be forced into indentured slavery with the victim receiving profits from your labour until they are paid back. Crimes without a victim would no exist. It would be legal to download music, consume drugs or do insider trading. A crime like murder would be punishable by death, or your heirs could receive suitable compensation. One could also specify in their will that they would accept no compensation for being murdered. Anyone would be able to put to death a murderer, but of course if they were wrong and a court(private) saw so anyone could then now kill them for the wrongful murder of the supposed murderer, and this would in turn prevent unwarranted vigallante justice from running amok.

First of all, it's impossible to predict exactly how society would organize itself upon voluntary and organic lines. I do not wish to plan an idea society - I simply stand in opposition to the initiation of violence. That being said.. The role of private security agencies in a voluntary society would be radically different from that of police in modern society. The purpose of a libertarian legal system would be restitution for the victim, not 'punishment' or 'rehabilitation'. Private security agencies would not have a monopoly on the use of force. They would be treated exactly like anyone else. In our society cops are 'super citizens'. They can break the law without redress. I propose that 'police' be absolutely no different from anyone else. Could private security agencies commit criminal actions? Certainly. Anyone can commit criminal actions. But you would have competing defence agencies. So if one security firm was ruthless and criminal, other security firms would be hired to defend individuals from this firm. Now what do you do if the state monopolist on 'protection' (the police) becomes corrupt or criminal? Where do you turn to then?

Absolutely welfare should be wiped out immediately. If I could push a button and have it gone tomorrow I would. A lot of people use it to subsidize their alcohol and drug addictions. It's an impediment to living a healthy life. We are doing a great disservice to the taxpayer who's money we steal and the welfare bum who's parasitic lifestyle we encourage by keeping this program. But let me be clear - it is far, far more important to end corporate welfare, especially to the merchants of death, and welfare to politicians and their friends then it is to end welfare for the poor. But we should end it all, and we should end it immediately.

Many criminals such as the police commit countless acts of violence and are never sentenced or arrested for their crimes.

The largest criminal organization in Canada is our Federal Government. They guilty of billions of counts of theft. Every dollar they steal from us in taxation should be another charge.

Not many transport trucks driving through city roads yet they are still potholed to hell. Lots of cars go in and out of mall parking lots yet they are in pristine shape. I hear 407 is much nicer to drive on than other highways... never been on it myself. There is no competition in roads. What we have now is road socialism. Like any other form of socialism, it doesn't work. it doesn't work because it is impossible, absent a price system, to rationally allocate scarce resources. So we have for example traffic congestion. Try driving through toronto during rush hour. Everyone wants to use the road at this time. If there was pricing this problem would solve itself. Think how unsafe our roads are. How many people die every year while driving? The government planners have no incentive towards road safety, like competing corporations would. Market competition drives prices down because people can choose between less expensive alternatives. When you have a system of socialism there is no competition - prices go up and quality degrades. I am absolutely, like my conservative friends here, an 'isolationist' or 'non interventionist'. Actually I think we should just get rid of our military, but if we are to have one it should be strictly for the purpose of national defence. When we intervene in places like Libya and Afghanistan we actually threaten our national security by building animonisty towards us around the world. And it's very expensive. We need to stop spending so much money overseas.

Don't worry Bill, I'm sure when I am old and senility sets in I will share many of the same opinions you do.

The events of 9/11 were blow back from American foreign policy. You cannot expect to go overseas and kill whoever you want without their being consequences. Or, in the words of Ron Paul They're over here, because we're over there.

So in your opinion employees of the state monopoly on postal service (Canada Post) are not part of the government? How about a judge? He's not part of the government? A police officer?

We have economic troubles, sure, because of government intervention in the market, and if we eliminated this government intervention we would have full employment and jobs that paid more and were more fulfilling. But paying people not to work is just a terrible idea, and we shouldn't use the economic troubles - caused by government - to justify ever more government spending and intervention.

The CBC is a crown corporation. It's employees are government employees. If they run the show, then clearly it is run by the government. I think what you guys are trying to say is that the CBC is autonomous from the PMO or Parliament. Which may or may not be true, I have no perspective on this matter, but it's just silly to say that a crown corporation is not run by the government. It is part of the government.

In our current legal system the victim actually suffers doubly. First, the assault or what have you, and then second they are forced to pay taxes for the dubious pleasure of having the criminal caught and punished. I think it would be far wiser to force the criminal to pay restitution to the victim, and if they do not have the money to do so to force them into indentured slavery until the wrong is righted. Criminals - real criminals, violent thugs and the like - are absolutely coddled by our legal system while honest people are harassed for victimless crimes which should not even be illegal in the first place (like insider trading, or marijuana consumption / distribution).