/liberty/ - Liberty

everything

>>71409

Well played

>>71410

I'm an Anarchist. Of course I want all of it gone. What I hate the most though is compulsory education and State licensing.

This board has a plurality of Libertarians who typically abhor all government regulations so the list would be as great as there are government interventions into the economy. How about asking instead what are some government regulations that have some merit? That would at least be more interesting.

>>71419

To make it a bit harder, regulations that don't even need to exist and only take credit for natural occurrence also don't count.

>>71420

so like child labor laws?

>>71420

In that case:

>Famine relief

I'm also tending towards the opinion that stealing in case of an emergency is not prohibited, under very narrow circumstances. Only tending because as of yet, I haven't yet come up with my own coherent ancap philosophy.

Not sure if I'll keep up this idea. The specifics are easy to come up with, but the justification, that's where I'm stuck. I could probably name several ad hoc justifications but not one that I can stand behind a hundred percent.

If I keep it up, then it would elevate famine relief from commie-tier bullshit to bad and misguided, but with a hint of goodness. Politicians could still suck it. At the very least, they'd have to use their own resources to relieve the famine as far as that's possible, and the famine victims would have to compensate their benefactors eventually.

While I'm at it, might point out something that bemuses me: Many statists would take half my reasoning (including the unsure premises!) as a blank cheque for redistributionist policies in general. That's a good indicator that they're doing apologetics in the least flattering sense of that term, and not genuine philosophy. However, there are so many circumstances that are required before a theft could qualify as an emergency theft, all current programs would still have to be rejected. I can't stress this enough. That's why I don't think I'm making any concessions to future statists.

>Crime fighting

As long as the state holds a monopoly on crime fighting, it actually should fight crime. That only includes genuine crime and not victimless crimes. It also doesn't provide a blank cheque for the shit the state does nowadays. Want to lock a petty thief up for twenty years? Congrats, you're a tyrant.

>Basically anything prohibiting political freedoms

That one might not actually be relevant to what you asked, but your question nevertheless provides a good opportunity to talk about it.

Laws that prohibit certain parties, or that limit the right to vote, are all fine, as long as they serve a good cause, namely the protection of the rights of others. In fact, the freedom to found your own party dedicated to abolishing private property, razing churches, and stealing kids, is not a freedom at all. It's a prelude to aggression via means that are coercive to begin with.

Here, it helps to think in terms of what's good rulership, not which procedures for rulership would be good. The latter question is something that political philosophers these days are wont to dwell on at length. Not procedures make a good or a bad ruler, however, but actual decisions. An unbiased committee of experts that decides to kill all minorities may follow a proper procedure, but its decision is worse than an autocrat who The best rulers would not use any political means at all. They'd follow the same law as everyone else, they'd just have more authority. Think Emperor Norton of Chicago..

>>71418

Honestly I'd have a state regulating some national parks to protect the plants and animals and some museums to preserve history as it's one thing to read about a sword or see it in a video, and it's another to actually see it. In the same category as museums I'd put some old castles, old buildings and monuments. I could even see them partially given to the private sector, in that they(the businessmen) can manage them however they want and keep the profits, but they can't demolish the museum or turn it into a disco/restaurant or to cut down the trees/kill the animals in the parks.

>>71429

newfags need to lurk 2 years before posting

I'd like if there was less regulation in the health industry. Specifically in copyright, because if corporations couldnt copyright cancer medicine it would have been profitable to cure it by now.

Most of my taxes go to funding education sector, so I would want to remove regulation on that first.

>>71437

I have been lurking and posting on this board for two years already, but that does not make me an anarchist. Plus you haven't pointed out why that's a bad idea, just posted an ad hominem.

>>71413

>State licensing

This. Licensing is complete bullcrap, and it would be one of the first things I would would like to see rolled back. A coworker of mine finally passed her RN state board after the third attempt simply because she stresses out on timed exams. At around $200 a pop to take the exam, that is $600 she just gave to the state without any bearing on her practical competency in the field. Now just imagine how many people fail each time, or how many times people have to take it again, and you will see the cash cow the state has. Now magnify that with every profession the state has an license exam for and you will see the incentive they have to fail you. Just imagine the growth we have if every Joe Blow was able to set up a Brazilian Wax shop without having to pay the entry licensing fee along with annual renewal fees, and continuing education fees.

Another early thing I would like to see, is until private schools really begin to take off, public funds should be distributed among public schools evenly. Where I am at, the funds are distributed out based on population size and whatever extracurricular activities are available. So you end up with these few big fuck-all schools that soak up all the money, building huge fuck-off stadiums with public funds, while there are a dozen satellite schools that can barely afford to provide decent and updated education. It pisses me off to high heavens, when I live in a conservative area which is supposed to be off the state's teat, yet they don't bat an eye when getting those funds for their new school buildings.

>>71428

Ignoring the fact that famine relief would require coercion to gather the funds in order to provide relief and is therefor immoral, I don't think that government relief for famine (and let's just expand this to any disaster that disrupts the normal logistics for bringing necessary supplies to an area) is necessary or efficient with regards to private forces. Governments throughout the world already try their best to inhibit the natural free market mechanisms for relieving disaster struck areas with price gouging laws that inhibit natural price rationing with prices and also introduce disincentives for people to bring goods to disaster areas by not being able to charge a price that would compensate their efforts, why fill your truck up with ice and drive all day and night to some disaster area to sell to people who need to keep perishable foods cold if you could not charge a higher than pre-disaster prices? We also saw with the recent disasters in USA that private firms like Amazon and Walmart were able to provide needed goods up until the disaster and almost immediately resumed operations afterwards.

While I think that disaster relief can produce some good it tends to be delayed considerably and much slower and I think that a government who takes the responsibility of providing relief will, in the minds of the people, absolve them of some moral imperative to help because they have already provided help through their taxes. It also may be said that famines are more often than not caused by States, whether with warfare or by some unintended effect of some re-organization of the factors of production.

>>71429

I understand your concerns and even Adam Smith made some concessions to government the regulation and protection of parks. However, I do not think this is required. First to begin with museums. There are already today many museums that preserve artifacts from the mundane to the extraordinary and there is a profit motive to this as many people with various interests go to see these artifacts. In my opinion if a museum is not able to support itself with voluntary donations or by charging people to view the artifacts then it is clear that there is no importance in the mind of the people for these artifacts and there is no reason to preserve them. We don't need government subsidies for theaters to operate or for concerts to be played, and it could be said that these are both culturally important. As for castles and old buildings or monuments, I do not see any benefit for a business man to buy a castle to just destroy it. You must remember that most castles and buildings of historic importance were at one point privately owned and they still exist until this day through the care and maintenance of their owners. I would see no reason that this wouldn't continue today.

As for parks and the preservation of wildlife, I think that private property would benefit the wildlife considerably. Consider that in American law there have been many such cases where private property owners brought torts against industrialists for their degradation of the natural environment that infringe on their own property rights and USA courts decided in favor of the industrialists have an extraordinary legal power to degrade the environment to ensure industrial output. They freely can pollute lakes and rivers, they can also pollute the air freely. In a free market with strong property rights this would not happen without the consent of all affected. It would also, I think, protect animals because modern ecological laws encourage people to destroy animals that have an endangered status, because once discovered by the government, the property rights of the citizen are defiled in favor of the animal, so many private citizens are encouraged to destroy animals that are endangered for the sake of their own property. There is also a problem of the Tragedy of the Commons with regards to government owned land. In the western areas of the USA where logging and ranching is common, when the government gives licenses to log or ranch on government land it is not in the interest of these ranchers or loggers to preserve this land because they will not see continued use of it, it is in their economic interest to clear cut or graze the fields barren. In private use their economic interests and the ecological interests are the same. There is also I think an unfair burden of the protection of wildlife on a few people, someone in Houston can be very concerned with the Oregon Snipe and its preservation and can induce people to pass laws to protect it, which will pass costs unfairly onto Oregonese lumberjacks.

>>71480

This reminds me of a story of a West African woman who moved to Salt Lake City (I forget from what country specifically) and she started to operate a beauty salon out of her house because there was no places that catered to African Americans. Since she did not have a license, however, the local beauty salonists had her reported and she received a letter to desist until she had gotten a license. To get this she would need to go to a cosmetology school which was very expensive and they did not at all provide her with how to care for African hairstyles, which is what she was focusing on. She tried to bring up her case in the chamber of commerce in Salt Lake City but was denied and she was forced to quit. Licensing has deprived the Africans of Salt Lake City a place where they can be beautified. It's fucking stupid.

>>71482

The anon with the museums and forests here.

I should have expanded more on what I said, I do not believe that if someone buys lots of land and creates wildlife reservation the state should nationalize it, or if some great celebrity dies and his family makes his house into a sort of museum the state should nationalize it as well. I was referring to the existing national parks and museums, that they could be partially privately owned in that the owner can keep all the income, but he has limited control over the building or property(he can cut a few trees to build a parking lot or a house for the ranger, or decide what to put in the museum but they can't transform the park or museum into a mall or cinema).

Yes, I also concede that there is a lot of corruption and there are a lot of back door dealings between politicians and private lumberjacks in order to cut "protected" forests cheaply, but this can also happen when the state sells the land to a private owner with full rights to that land. In Romania, after the fall of the communism the new ruling party sold a lot of the industry at a fraction of it's actual cost to foreign and local businessmen, who then closed the factories and sold the machinery. In this case both the businessman and the politician profited(the politician got bribed to sell him the factory at such a low price), but the people suffered. What I am trying to say is that it will be hard to privatize everything, especially when there is no clear owner and it won't always be the highest bidder, this does not mean that government should exists or that it's better for it to control the industry, only that it won't be easy or "fair" to privatize everything.

Top of my list is medicine. Take away the structures forcing it to look as it does and see what a more free market would do with it. There should be less regulation on what can be done and by who. I dislike licensing, and I include ending the drug war in this, too.

>>71429

>national parks

not necessary. they can run as private enterprise

for forests etc it is possible to make deals with several landlords once or even entire (private) cities or (private) counties [county not country]. lets keep in mind that some of these products, costing maybe 6bucks a year, are just not worth the extra deliberation of individual subscriptions.

>protect the plants and animals

will be much more correctly protected if private.

as far extinction etc goes, if it really is true that they are worthwhile keeping around then you could make a ton of money speculating on x animal as a commodity. youd probably buy some land or zoo to keep them in and watch their value increase.

>preserve history

1. preserve it privately with an institute

2. in some cases it will be possible to adequately preserve it simply online

3. if its part of marketing or propaganda for your private state

4. some of these can be run as tourist business. some time ago I saw documentary about former nobles who do exactly that after their local municipality slashed funds.

5. why is it ok to force other people to pay for it? on top of ethics, youre setting yourself up for capital beeing incorrectly allocated. and also for jewish 'museum directors' embezzling tax money.

>>71408

I really love decision markets, so anything with betting on an outcome

so finance and 'anti-gambling' regulation is a thorn in my eye

by numbers I think it is

finance (including central banks etc) > health care > wars > energy

>>71408

driving licences

>CTRL + F "Zoning Laws"

>"Agribusiness Subsides"

>no results

I didn't know what I expected.

>no 'Missing Middle housing' to bridge the gap between single houses and apartment projects

>no Mixed-use zoning to ease in actually affordable condominums and apartment rooms

>not scrapping the requirements of wasted parking lot space

>not easing CAFE Standards for autos and then actually enforcing said standards on shitpile semis and crossovers

Probably weapon development, especially the civie gun market.

>>71418

Probably immigration?

>>71961

>there are "an"cap posters who defend restrictions on the free moment of labour

/liberty/ is a magical place

>>71972

its called private property

and by extrapolation, voluntary association

>>71990

>Major League sports

Explain, please. I always hated this degenerate trash.

>>71972

If a state exists, it better be able to defend its border.

>>71993

For example, the owners of the Texas Rangers (including Bush Jr.) got a subsidy to build their stadium. This subsidy far exceeded the profit made when they sold their team, which meant absent of the subsidy they would have arrived at a loss. The book also mentioned all the renovation subsidies Steinbrenner got for Yankee Stadium. I will read further tomorrow to get some more examples.

>>72052

Thanks already for what you have!

>>71972

If someone comes uninvited in your house, you don't call that "free movement of labor", but trespassing.

>>71408

Patents completely gone.

Copyrights severely reduced in length and in scope, stuff like DMCA gone.

It's not like regulations advance society any. Competition, research, and civil society do that. Regulatory bodies are typically conservative and slow-moving, tending to make the economy less responsive and to choke off opportunities for people.

Perhaps a good way to target deregulation would be to target import substitution patterns. Another one would be to target regulations presently having a disproportionate impact on equality of opportunity - not everyone can afford expensive compliance.

>>71993

>>72052

woops almost forgot. The book cites from a Forbes article "Field Of Schemes" with each Big Four's EBITDA operating profit:

Baseball $496M

Basketball $207M

Football $832M

Hockey $125M

Total $1.66B

Subsidy $2.00B

Net Loss before subsidy $340M

Weapons.

I want everything available to everyone, carryable or not.

>>72256

Well Congress is passing a bill that allows concealed carry across all 50 states though there's some shady shit thrown in there as well.