The Free Talk Live BBS

Free Talk Live => General => Topic started by: ReasonableVoice on February 01, 2014, 01:52:11 PM

Title: Liberty Lovers !!!! The idea of the State is NOT your enemy.
Post by: ReasonableVoice on February 01, 2014, 01:52:11 PM
"War on Liberty" in not being waged by all those who believe in the IDEA of the STATE.

Many believe in the IDEA of the STATE as way to BRING more LIBERTY.


Yes, certain portions of the current implementation of the State
clearly are a portion of an enemy, but they are not the head of the snake.


Though many "Libertarians" or "Liberty Lovers" berate the idea of the State and,
worse, berate Statists (those who believe in using the idea of the State to good purpose),
the truth is . . . the idea of the State is a neutral thing just like any tool.

Statism is nothing more than a tool.

Corporatism is a tool.

A firearm is a tool.

Some tools when used improperly or without proper maintenance can be dangerous
and when those tools fall into the wrong hands can be VERY VERY . . . VERY dangerous.


Those who gain control over large implementations of Corporatism
can then use that tool to gain control over most implementations of Statism.
(  implementations of the idea of the State with solid constitutional founding
             are more difficult for them, but not impossible )

The "money changers" are well aware of this and have used their "money changing ways(often by fraud)"
to gain control over large implementations of the Corporatism tool.
They then use those implementations of the Corporatism tool to gain control over
implementations of the Statism tool.

The tools are not the problem !
Some of the hands in which those tools are currently held - THAT is the problem.

If you observe the revolving doors between the implementations of Corporatism and Statism
you can see how this slight of hand is performed.

The revolving door between Goldman Sachs et al. and the Department of the Treasury.
the revolving door between Monsanto board members and the top officials of the FDA,
the revolving door between . . . well, I think you get the idea.



PLEASE STOP FIGHTING with those who wish to use the TOOL of "the idea of the State"
in order to implement that idea in the form of a NAP guided constitutional governance (a form of minarcism).
THEY ARE NOT YOUR ENEMY.


PS

In early United States history, better limitations were in place concerning CORPORATIONS.

A corporation is not a NATURAL PERSON and should not have the rights of a natural person.
Title: Re: Liberty Lovers !!!! The idea of the State is NOT your enemy.
Post by: alaric89 on February 01, 2014, 03:31:27 PM
"Religian is not your enemy." said the priest and torturer to the heritic. "It is just a tool."
You are correct maam, belief in the state is indeed a tool.
Title: Re: Liberty Lovers !!!! The idea of the State is NOT your enemy.
Post by: dalebert on February 01, 2014, 04:16:15 PM
PLEASE STOP FIGHTING with those who wish to use the TOOL of "the idea of the State"
in order to implement that idea in the form of a NAP guided constitutional governance (a form of minarcism).
THEY ARE NOT YOUR ENEMY.

WTF? Who is this (and the ALL CAPS in particular) directed at? I've not seen any anarchists fighting minarchists on this forum for a very long time. You started the first threads on the subject in possibly over a year. Maybe you're on the wrong forum for this debate (or any debate?). Dood... I actually started a website primarily for the purpose of promoting anarchy and even I hardly give a shit anymore.  The sooner you realize there are better things to do with your time, the better. I would encourage you to listen to just a few minutes of this from 44 mins in which I've linked.

http://youtu.be/Tn9-Ygto9yw?t=44m (http://youtu.be/Tn9-Ygto9yw?t=44m)

Anarchists make up a very tiny percentage of the population. Do you think convincing a few of us here on this forum, let's say, uh... Alaric and me, that you will be anywhere closer to creating this perfect government you've constructed for your fantasy world? Really? Alaric and I are your primary obstacles?
Title: Re: Liberty Lovers !!!! The idea of the State is NOT your enemy.
Post by: ReasonableVoice on February 01, 2014, 06:18:48 PM
PLEASE STOP FIGHTING with those who wish to use the TOOL of "the idea of the State"
in order to implement that idea in the form of a NAP guided constitutional governance (a form of minarcism).
THEY ARE NOT YOUR ENEMY.

WTF? Who is this (and the ALL CAPS in particular) directed at? I've not seen any anarchists fighting minarchists on this forum for a very long time.


This was not directed at anyone specifically ( hence being located in the starting post ).

This was not directed at anyone in this forum that I am aware of.

This was directed at anyone who DOES fit the context (and was put there because of personal experience outside of this forum that many do fit that context and those may one day come here as well).


I actually started a website primarily for the purpose of promoting anarchy
Why do you mention that ?

Title: Re: Liberty Lovers !!!! The idea of the State is NOT your enemy.
Post by: Ski Killington on February 01, 2014, 06:39:38 PM
Legendary Anarchist Riot Dog In Action (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=reUGoSqEWss#)
Title: Re: Liberty Lovers !!!! The idea of the State is NOT your enemy.
Post by: dalebert on February 01, 2014, 07:30:48 PM
This was directed at anyone who DOES fit the context (and was put there because of personal experience outside of this forum that many do fit that context and those may one day come here as well).

My point remains. We're a very small portion of the population. How much can we matter? Shouldn't you be focused on the big-government types? Is it because some anarchists are not doing activism that you think is effective? If so, you'll have a much easier time convincing them to change their tactics than trying to convert them.

I actually started a website primarily for the purpose of promoting anarchy
Why do you mention that ?

Just to show that I feel like I've kind of been where you are. I had this notion that if I made just the right arguments, there would be this click in people's heads and some sort of enlightenment would sweep the country and we'd get freedom. I was practically religious about it. I was stuck on this notion that minarchists were just as bad, if not worse, than full-on big-government types, and I wasted a lot of personal energy and time on what now seems rather silly.

I feel like one of the greatest personal freedoms we can achieve is learning to live in the world we have and accept the things we can't change. I'll keep chiseling away whenever I can, taking bites out of the elephant, but the path to liberty is definitely a marathon (possibly multi-generational); not a sprint. I expect a lot of little victories, a lot of three-steps forward, two-steps-back sorts of events.
Title: Re: Liberty Lovers !!!! The idea of the State is NOT your enemy.
Post by: ReasonableVoice on February 01, 2014, 08:48:48 PM
This was directed at anyone who DOES fit the context (and was put there because of personal experience outside of this forum that many do fit that context and those may one day come here as well).

My point remains.

Are you concluding that
1) I spend a lot(or too much) of time posting here
and
2) I don't spend time in other avenues and activities

???
 
If so, that would be your opinion and
my opinion would be different on both counts.



Just to show that I feel like I've kind of been where you are.

OK, thanks.



I feel like one of the greatest personal freedoms we can achieve is learning to live in the world we have and accept the things we can't change. I'll keep chiseling away whenever I can, taking bites out of the elephant, but the path to liberty is definitely a marathon (possibly multi-generational); not a sprint.

I agree and there is wisdom in these words
and it even relates a little bit to my posting here.

Some people may not even understand the basics about
how a society works and why it needs governance(responsibility) to remain a healthy society.
When seen in print, it may spark an interest in researching the topic.
Title: Re: Liberty Lovers !!!! The idea of the State is NOT your enemy.
Post by: dalebert on February 01, 2014, 09:14:46 PM
Are you concluding that
1) I spend a lot(or too much) of time posting here
and
2) I don't spend time in other avenues and activities

No. Just on this particular subject. Like I said, the tiny portion of the population who doesn't want a monopoly form of government does not seem like much of an obstacle to your elaborate vision for a non-tyrannical government compared to the massive numbers who want a large and intrusive government.

Quote
If so, that would be your opinion and
my opinion would be different on both counts.

Clearly. You keep just stating your opinion which we already know. That's why I'm trying to get you to check your motivations.

Quote
Some people may not even understand the basics about how a society works and why it needs governance(responsibility) to remain a healthy society.
When seen in print, it may spark an interest in researching the topic.

That's just condescending. Most of us were minarchists ourselves for many years. I've been registered Democrat, Republican, and then Libertarian, in that order. I ran for office in CA and won my primary. I worked in the Republican party there for years. I did activism of all sorts for years before that. Trust me. You haven't said anything new to most of us. I've been where you are and have felt the same way as you at some point. The closest thing to something new in your arguments is that you're throwing the term "NAP" around a lot, mostly incorrectly.

It just brings me back to wondering why you care whether a tiny portion of the population believes in that. Why this battle? If you said you were going to go do activism (X) and I said I don't think (X) will help the cause of liberty, then you make the case for why (X) will help and why I should care. That I get, although the debate over whether anarchists should do politics is pretty tired as well.

Governments aren't going to become your fantasy version in your lifetime. Monopoly forms of government aren't going to go away in my lifetime. This debate is just mental masturbation.
Title: Re: Liberty Lovers !!!! The idea of the State is NOT your enemy.
Post by: ReasonableVoice on February 01, 2014, 09:36:39 PM
Some people may not even understand the basics about how a society works and why it needs governance(responsibility) to remain a healthy society.
When seen in print, it may spark an interest in researching the topic.
That's just condescending.

Condescending is your subjective opinion.

My statement implied no specific person lacked understanding.
And it is certainly no shame to lack understanding.
At some point I myself did not understand the basics and would have appreciated a post that condensed the understanding.

And, I may forget in the future, and then I would appreciate the post anew.


The closest thing to something new in your arguments is that you're throwing the term "NAP" around a lot, mostly incorrectly.
throwing "NAP" term around mostly incorrectly ?

I disagree, so if you care to identify any specifics to prove your claim
that could prove beneficial.
Title: Re: Liberty Lovers !!!! The idea of the State is NOT your enemy.
Post by: dalebert on February 01, 2014, 10:03:56 PM
I disagree, so if you care to identify any specifics to prove your claim that could prove beneficial.

I seriously doubt that since we've already discussed it. Meanwhile, you've pointedly ignored the elephant in the room several times now--

Tiny numbers of anarchists. Millions of big government proponents. How do you see anarchists as any sort of obstacle on the path to your fantasy version of government? We may as well start discussing how we plan to spend the millions that we might win in the lottery.
Title: Re: Liberty Lovers !!!! The idea of the State is NOT your enemy.
Post by: ReasonableVoice on February 02, 2014, 11:53:18 AM
I disagree, so if you care to identify any specifics to prove your claim that could prove beneficial.

I seriously doubt that since we've already discussed it.
I take that "we've" means others in the past on this board.

And that you seriously doubt that you will discuss it with me because of some personal preference.

I accept that, but that leave your claim without merit.

 (The claim was regarding that I supposedly mostly incorrectly throw the NAP term around).



Meanwhile, you've pointedly ignored the elephant in the room several times now--

Tiny numbers of anarchists. Millions of big government proponents.

Not ignored, skipped.
Skipped because it is not on topic.

That said, I would address that topic by lumping
Liberty Lovers (not just anarchists) who are willing to take action into one group
and everyone else into another group.


I don't view that first group as "tiny".
Not plugging here, but Alex Jones has millions of Liberty Lover listeners
and I would guesstimate that a fairly large percentage of those
are willing to take action.


This is really just addressing numbers as compared between groups.
And comparative numbers are basically percentages.

and the percentage of the population that actually took the field in 1776 was not very large.

With that perspective, I don't see the elephant as anything more than a gnat.

Especially with the record gun sales (even admitted in the corporate run media).
 
Defensive violence is not outside of NAP :-0)
Title: Re: Liberty Lovers !!!! The idea of the State is NOT your enemy.
Post by: dalebert on February 02, 2014, 02:07:41 PM
throwing "NAP" term around mostly incorrectly ?

I disagree, so if you care to identify any specifics to prove your claim
that could prove beneficial.

No. Just us. Oh, dear. Every fiber of my being is saying "Don't do it! Don't take the bait!" but I'll bite and we'll see how ridiculous it starts getting.

You said the NAP doesn't apply to corporations for some reason. That can turn into a very complicated discussion because corporations as they exist are bizarre. They're government-created entities, the owners of which are granted a certain amount of immunity from responsibility for their actions, and that's bullshit. I don't see why anyone should get to be free of responsibility for their actions. That said, I have no problem with the basic idea which is people pooling some resources to make a large business operation possible. They have as much right to be free of aggression while working together voluntarily through an organization as they have as individuals.
Title: Re: Liberty Lovers !!!! The idea of the State is NOT your enemy.
Post by: ReasonableVoice on February 02, 2014, 04:28:05 PM
throwing "NAP" term around mostly incorrectly ?

I disagree, so if you care to identify any specifics to prove your claim
that could prove beneficial.

No. Just us. Oh, dear. Every fiber of my being is saying "Don't do it! Don't take the bait!" but I'll bite and we'll see how ridiculous it starts getting.

You said the NAP doesn't apply to corporations for some reason.

Now I see why you thought something that I never said. Because I never said it.
Please do not read into things that are not there.

If I am mistaken (which I am not) please show me where I said that
"the NAP doesn't apply to corporations".

I believe you may be referencing where I said that corporations are not "natural" persons
and implied that the NAP does not not preclude taxing NON-persons(non-members of human society) for the opportunity to do business within the society.

The business opportunities in a free society belong to the natural persons that make up that society.
If a corporation (non-society member) wants to partake(not steal) some of that opportunity, it may be charged (taxed) by the society for such opportunity.
But taking such opportunity without making required payment of taxes(restitution to society) then THAT is theft(aggression).

And to be clear -- this is NOT saying that a "natural" person CAN be taxed under NAP.


They have as much right to be free of aggression while working together voluntarily through an organization as they have as individuals.
TRUE . . . BUT . . .
This next is where we might disagree . . .
A natural person is a member of a human society, a corporation is not.
Still, corporations do have right to be free from aggression(initiation of offensive force).
But when the corporation fails to pay the tax required for the opportunity to do business
that is theft(aggression) from the human society and the corporation does not have the right to be free from restitution(defensive force) for committing that aggression.
Title: Re: Liberty Lovers !!!! The idea of the State is NOT your enemy.
Post by: ReasonableVoice on February 02, 2014, 04:47:41 PM
I have no problem with the basic idea which is people pooling some resources to make a large business operation possible.
Followup for clarification as I didn't hit on this exact point.

Part of the responsibility of governance under NAP includes protection of the society at large.
Large organizations(or corporations) have been historically dangerous as evidenced by the times in which we currently live.

So that part of implementing NAP necessarily is placed into a balancing area . . .
balancing rights of an individual against the rights of a group.
This is one of the few balancing areas required within a NAP society.

Pollution is one example threat --
Pollution is a normal part of existence, but large corporations are known to pollute more than an individual or small group, etc.

I am not saying that ALL corporations would be taxed either,
just that it is justified to tax corporations which may pose substantial threats to society or communities within the society.

Regulating large corporations enough to keep the threat in check and prepare for providing remedy for damage caused - not significantly more than that.

If a corporation builds a nuclear device and it might detonate wiping out the entire corporation and many in society as well, a NAP governance should be designed to prevent(before) and remedy(after a threat becomes a reality)


And for large corporations that pose no threat and provide great benefit to the society at large,
"perhaps"(in limited circumstances) provide assistance.




You may not agree this fits NAP, but since it is a quite logical interpretation of NAP,
it can hardly be considered as "mostly incorrectly" throwing the NAP term around. :-0)
Title: Re: Liberty Lovers !!!! The idea of the State is NOT your enemy.
Post by: alaric89 on February 02, 2014, 05:03:10 PM
On the Joe Rogan Experience with Peter Schiff, Joe hammered home that very point. Capitalisms track record is indeed less then steller on the enviroment. Even though strong governments record is a lot worse, I happen to know the government forced cleaner cars and cleaned up a lot of water bodies, I am old enough to remember smog and burning rivers. This is a tough one for a state hater. I think private trustees would grab up large tracks of land for parks, but I honestly think cars would still be spewing out CO1 without government mandate.
Title: Re: Liberty Lovers !!!! The idea of the State is NOT your enemy.
Post by: ReasonableVoice on February 02, 2014, 05:16:15 PM
This is a tough one for a state hater.
The hate comes from the state evoking hate by overstepping natural boundaries.

A state wholly within its natural boundaries would likely evoke love.

It is not the idea of the state that ought to be judged harshly,
but rather the actions of certain states which step out where their founders wish was that they never go.
Title: Re: Liberty Lovers !!!! The idea of the State is NOT your enemy.
Post by: alaric89 on February 02, 2014, 05:32:58 PM
This is a tough one for a state hater.
The hate comes from the state evoking hate by overstepping natural boundaries.

A state wholly within its natural boundaries would likely evoke love.

It is not the idea of the state that ought to be judged harshly,
but rather the actions of certain states which step out where their founders wish was that they never go.


That is the funniest thing I have read for a long time. In a way it is perfect. Can someone make a meme with Reasonable Voice's brilliant post on that famous hippy girl with dreadlocks? Or maybe Yoda if he fell to the darkside.
Title: Re: Liberty Lovers !!!! The idea of the State is NOT your enemy.
Post by: ReasonableVoice on February 02, 2014, 06:58:19 PM
A state wholly within its natural boundaries would likely evoke love.
That is the funniest thing I have read for a long time.
Truth is funnier than fiction :-0)
Title: Re: Liberty Lovers !!!! The idea of the State is NOT your enemy.
Post by: dalebert on February 03, 2014, 12:50:06 AM
Corporations are people. Queue up a slight variation of the classic line from Soylent Green...

"It's made of people!"

That said, the frightening history of corporations is a history of a government-created monstrosity. Government absolved the decision-makers and shareholders of a ridiculous amount of responsibility. They gave them rights and took away responsibility. Those two things go together. No shocker disaster ensued.
Title: Re: Liberty Lovers !!!! The idea of the State is NOT your enemy.
Post by: ReasonableVoice on February 03, 2014, 11:15:14 AM
Corporations are people. Queue up a slight variation of the classic line from Soylent Green...

"It's made of people!"
I accept that corporations can be made up(in part) of humans (and addressed that in the two part response) .

Do accept that society-wide application of "NAP governance (freedom/responsibility)"
necessarily requires a balancing aspect between individuals and groups ?

And if so . . .
Do you accept that I have NOT mostly incorrectly thrown around the term NAP ?

Title: Re: Liberty Lovers !!!! The idea of the State is NOT your enemy.
Post by: dalebert on February 03, 2014, 01:30:02 PM
Do accept that society-wide application of "NAP governance (freedom/responsibility)"
necessarily requires a balancing aspect between individuals and groups?

This is begging the question (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Begging_the_question) since I don't believe in society-wide application of what you're calling "NAP governance". That's the case you're trying to make, isn't it? The point of this thread.

Even so, I don't even understand the distinction you're trying to make between individuals and groups. If a group of frat boys votes to gang-rape a girl who's passed out on a pool table then the individuals who actually rape her are violating the NAP. The guys who continue to associate with a group that is clearly corrupt for even believing such a vote should be taken seriously in the first place are partly responsible even if they didn't join in. They're demonstrating some degree of advocacy for the aggression. Guys who immediately quit the frat and openly state that they don't approve of such a vote are not responsible for aggression. If the fraternity members want to redeem their organization in the eyes of the public, it would be in their best interest to demonstrate that they hold the individual members responsible in some way and at the very least disassociate from them by kicking them out of the fraternity, maybe more. That's my take on it. A group of people coordinating in an act obviously makes resolving such things more complicated but at no point does each individual stop being responsible for their choices.
Title: Re: Liberty Lovers !!!! The idea of the State is NOT your enemy.
Post by: ReasonableVoice on February 03, 2014, 02:09:02 PM
I don't even understand the distinction you're trying to make between individuals and groups. If a group of frat boys votes to gang-rape a girl who's passed out on a pool table then the individuals who actually rape her are violating the NAP.
That frat/rape example is only looking at one overt situation involving an "open(known to some high degree)" group.

Many corporations make covert decisions resulting in aggression WITHOUT everyone in the corporation being aware of such decisions or being aware of the aggression.

Example:
Certain heads on the board of EXXON hire construction workers to build a pipeline from a building out into the ocean. Years later, other certain heads of the board hire truckers to transport waste oil and pour it into a holding tank in that building - which drains to the ocean.

Situations like that is where a distinction between an individual and a group(corporation/organization/gang/etc) is necessarily required for NAP as applied to a group.

Understand ?

This is not the only difference but it is sufficient to show there must be a distinction.


I don't believe in society-wide application of what you're calling "NAP governance".

Regardless of your not believing in a society-wide application of what I'm calling "NAP governance" . . .

Do you accept that society-wide application of "NAP governance (freedom/responsibility)"
necessarily requires a balancing aspect between individuals and groups?



what you're calling "NAP governance"'
Do you see anything in  what I've called "NAP governance" that is not in keeping with NAP ?
If so, please identify whatever is not in keeping with NAP.

Title: Re: Liberty Lovers !!!! The idea of the State is NOT your enemy.
Post by: ReasonableVoice on February 03, 2014, 02:20:01 PM
FOLLOW-UP
I don't even understand the distinction you're trying to make between individuals and groups.


Is there anything in particular within this previous post that you have a question about
regarding distinction between individuals and groups ?

Quote from: ReasonableVoice

Part of the responsibility of governance under NAP includes protection of the society at large.
Large organizations(or corporations) have been historically dangerous as evidenced by the times in which we currently live.

So that part of implementing NAP necessarily is placed into a balancing area . . .
balancing rights of an individual against the rights of a group.
This is one of the few balancing areas required within a NAP society.

Pollution is one example threat --
Pollution is a normal part of existence, but large corporations are known to pollute more than an individual or small group, etc.

I am not saying that ALL corporations would be taxed either,
just that it is justified to tax corporations which may pose substantial threats to society or communities within the society.

Regulating large corporations enough to keep the threat in check and prepare for providing remedy for damage caused - not significantly more than that.

If a corporation builds a nuclear device and it might detonate wiping out the entire corporation and many in society as well, a NAP governance should be designed to prevent(before) and remedy(after a threat becomes a reality)


And for large corporations that pose no threat and provide great benefit to the society at large,
"perhaps"(in limited circumstances) provide assistance.
Title: Re: Liberty Lovers !!!! The idea of the State is NOT your enemy.
Post by: dalebert on February 03, 2014, 10:38:27 PM
Many corporations make covert decisions resulting in aggression WITHOUT everyone in the corporation being aware of such decisions or being aware of the aggression.

Example:
Certain heads on the board of EXXON hire construction workers to build a pipeline from a building out into the ocean. Years later, other certain heads of the board hire truckers to transport waste oil and pour it into a holding tank in that building - which drains to the ocean.

The corporation can't make decisions. The individuals on the board made the decisions. They're the individuals responsible. The investors handed over scads of money and trusted those leaders to handle their money well so trusting those leaders was a risk they were willing to take. It's their problem if the corp gets sued or is subjected to defensive violence or whatever due to the actions of their leaders and they lose their investments.

Quote
Do you accept that society-wide application of "NAP governance (freedom/responsibility)"
necessarily requires a balancing aspect between individuals and groups?

Repeating that over and over is not making whatever your point is any clearer, so I still don't even know what you're asking me to accept.
Title: Re: Liberty Lovers !!!! The idea of the State is NOT your enemy.
Post by: ReasonableVoice on February 03, 2014, 11:03:49 PM
Many corporations make covert decisions resulting in aggression WITHOUT everyone in the corporation being aware of such decisions or being aware of the aggression.

Example:
Certain heads on the board of EXXON hire construction workers to build a pipeline from a building out into the ocean. Years later, other certain heads of the board hire truckers to transport waste oil and pour it into a holding tank in that building - which drains to the ocean.
The corporation can't make decisions. The individuals on the board made the decisions. They're the individuals responsible.
This is incorrect   . . .  or "mostly incorrect" :-0)

Corporations CAN make decisions and do make decisions,
just not in the natural individual human manner.

Not only do corporations make decisions, their decision process can be such that no one can find out who had input to the decisions(who was present to vote, etc), let alone what their part was (vote yes?, no?, abstain?) Corporations can even make decisions by secret ballot.

Gangs, Frats, Organizations, etc. can also operate in such manner.

A "corporation" is NOT a natural person; hence, there is necessarily a distinction
between groups and individuals.

I can see how not understanding this would lead to difficulty answering the other questions  I posed, so let's please stay on this point until we reach a common understanding.

Please let me know if you still think groups(such as corporations) are not distinctly different from individual natural persons(humans).

And if you do believe they are the same, please address the information above.

Title: Re: Liberty Lovers !!!! The idea of the State is NOT your enemy.
Post by: dalebert on February 03, 2014, 11:06:55 PM
Corporations CAN make decisions and do make decisions,

Uh... nope. Only individuals have brains and it takes a brain to make a decision. I'm sorry. I just don't know how to take that statement as anything but completely absurd.

Quote
Not only do corporations make decisions, their decision process can be such that no one can find out who had input to the decisions(who was present to vote, etc), let alone what their part was (vote yes?, no?, abstain?) Corporations can even make decisions by secret ballot.

Okay, but I don't see it as particularly relevant to your point. Most crimes are committed secretively for obvious reasons, whether by an individual or individuals who coordinate to commit some crime. It sucks, but that's just a problem with solving crimes in general.

EDIT: I will say this much. If the board puts a decision up to a vote, the vote itself is usually public. Regardless of how individual shareholders vote, the shareholders know what was voted on. If the board is even putting up for a vote an act that violates the NAP, they're ALREADY responsible. They're just using the vote as a justification for rights violations, much like governments do. And if shareholders continue to support the corporation, they're responsible as well. That's their chance to pull their support from the organization, and they should or else be held responsible.
Title: Re: Liberty Lovers !!!! The idea of the State is NOT your enemy.
Post by: ReasonableVoice on February 03, 2014, 11:11:56 PM
Corporations CAN make decisions and do make decisions,
Uh... nope. Only individuals have brains and it takes a brain to make a decision.
 I'm sorry. I just don't know how to take that statement as anything but completely absurd.

Saying nope without addressing the information I provided which shows the contrary is simply an unsupported "nope".

A "SHARED" decision is NOT an individual brain function.
An individual brain CANNOT make a SHARED decision.



Title: Re: Liberty Lovers !!!! The idea of the State is NOT your enemy.
Post by: ReasonableVoice on February 03, 2014, 11:21:58 PM
CATCHING UP after your EDIT . . .

Okay, but I don't see it as particularly relevant to your point. Most crimes are committed secretively for obvious reasons, whether by an individual or individuals who coordinate to commit some crime. It sucks, but that's just a problem with solving crimes in general.

Not sure what your Okay is referring to at this point.

But as for relevant . . . it is completely relevant to the point.
The corporation (regardless of natural persons who may be part of the corporation) is liable for any crimes, harm, etc. done by the decisions of the corporation.

To allow the "corporation" to be immune from liability (as you seem to suggest) would
mean anyone wishing to commit harm could simply create a corporation to do the harm and then the natural person would have immunity.

Title: Re: Liberty Lovers !!!! The idea of the State is NOT your enemy.
Post by: ReasonableVoice on February 03, 2014, 11:31:08 PM
PS It is true that some actual natural persons who were part of the corporation may never be caught - but restitution would still be available for harm by holding the corporation liable for the SHARED decisions.

And that might prompt others in the corporation to HELP find those rascals :-0)

Title: Re: Liberty Lovers !!!! The idea of the State is NOT your enemy.
Post by: dalebert on February 03, 2014, 11:38:15 PM
Okay, this feels rather silly, but I will attempt to break it down for you what's happening when a group of people appears to be making decisions. In fact, a bunch of individuals who are each responsible for their choices is making a decision in a group dynamic.

An individual posts a craigslist ad to form a club at her college and posts a time and place for the first meeting.

A bunch of individuals decide whether to show up or not. Ten people decide to show up. They all agree that the organizer should lead since she took the initiative to form the group and is willing.

The "leader" proposes some things they should work on and proposes "dues" that each member should pay. She then proposes a vote.

One individual walks out because he doesn't want to pay dues.

Nine individuals agree to vote on dues.

A number is voted on and five of the nine agree, a simple majority. The presumption of most present is that a simple majority will conclude the vote. The "leader" declares the number valid.

One individual says it's not valid and he won't pay because he assumed it would take at least a 2/3 majority if not a unanimous decision for a newly-formed club. He gets up and walks out.

The rest individually conclude the vote is valid and agree to pay.

They then get two volunteers to act as enforcers. They individually agree to this task. The "leader" issues a command to the enforcers to go extract the dues from the other member, by force if necessary. The "leader" has decided that force is justified because the member agreed to the vote before hand.

Another member is outraged at this decision and leaves, refusing to pay the dues.

The "leader" extends the command to use force on the other member who left.

One of the new enforcers resigns and refuses to follow the order, and individual decision. The other individual decides to obey and commences to threaten the other members.

The vote was just a justification mechanism for decisions that individuals made like to issue an order for violence or to obey the order to commit violence. At no point did a group actually make a decision because that's impossible. In fact, the group is an abstraction at best. There are just a bunch of individuals cooperating and making individual decisions. A school of fish might look like one organism, but it is actually a bunch of individual fish responding to the movements (choices) of the fish around them, each one choosing to remain in proximity to the rest and to make their decisions dependent on the decisions of the others. People are a lot more complicated, obviously, but it's the same idea.
Title: Re: Liberty Lovers !!!! The idea of the State is NOT your enemy.
Post by: dalebert on February 03, 2014, 11:40:26 PM
To allow the "corporation" to be immune from liability (as you seem to suggest) would
mean anyone wishing to commit harm could simply create a corporation to do the harm and then the natural person would have immunity.

WHAT? I said exactly the opposite. That's how corporations are now because governments have made it so. Therein lies the problem. Governments created the problem so I don't see them as the solution.
Title: Re: Liberty Lovers !!!! The idea of the State is NOT your enemy.
Post by: dalebert on February 03, 2014, 11:42:50 PM
PS It is true that some actual natural persons who were part of the corporation may never be caught - but restitution would still be available for harm by holding the corporation liable for the SHARED decisions.

And that might prompt others in the corporation to HELP find those rascals :-0)

I agree with this as I have already stated. The shareholders put their trust in the leaders they elected. If their leaders betray them by making choices with the power they were given that violate rights, the shareholders accepted that risk when they gave the corporation their support. If they lose all the money they invested from the corp getting sued, oh well.
Title: Re: Liberty Lovers !!!! The idea of the State is NOT your enemy.
Post by: ReasonableVoice on February 03, 2014, 11:55:57 PM
Okay, this feels rather silly, but I will attempt to break it down for you what's happening when a group of people appears to be making decisions. In fact, a bunch of individuals who are each responsible for their choices is making a decision in a group dynamic.

An individual posts a craigslist ad to form a club at her college and posts a time and place for the first meeting.

A bunch of individuals decide whether to show up or not. Ten people decide to show up. They all agree that the organizer should lead since she took the initiative to form the group and is willing.

The "leader" proposes some things they should work on and proposes "dues" that each member should pay. She then proposes a vote.

One individual walks out because he doesn't want to pay dues.

Nine individuals agree to vote on dues.

A number is voted on and five of the nine agree, a simple majority. The presumption of most present is that a simple majority will conclude the vote. The "leader" declares the number valid.

One individual says it's not valid and he won't pay because he assumed it would take at least a 2/3 majority if not a unanimous decision for a newly-formed club. He gets up and walks out.

The rest individually conclude the vote is valid and agree to pay.

They then get two volunteers to act as enforcers. They individually agree to this task. The "leader" issues a command to the enforcers to go extract the dues from the other member, by force if necessary. The "leader" has decided that force is justified because the member agreed to the vote before hand.

Another member is outraged at this decision and leaves, refusing to pay the dues.

The "leader" extends the command to use force on the other member who left.

One of the new enforcers resigns and refuses to follow the order, and individual decision. The other individual decides to obey and commences to threaten the other members.

The vote was just a justification mechanism for decisions that individuals made like to issue an order for violence or to obey the order to commit violence. At no point did a group actually make a decision because that's impossible. In fact, the group is an abstraction at best. There are just a bunch of individuals cooperating and making individual decisions. A school of fish might look like one organism, but it is actually a bunch of individual fish responding to the movements (choices) of the fish around them, each one choosing to remain in proximity to the rest and to make their decisions dependent on the decisions of the others. People are a lot more complicated, obviously, but it's the same idea.


I don't need a break down of yet another situational example
that does not address the broad spectrum information which I provided.


But in respect, I will address this -- you said "A school of fish might look like one organism"

That could ONLY be the case if ALL of the fish were ALWAYS in COMPLETE agreement.
To expect corporations to always have all decision makers in complete agreement is not realistic.

The reality is that a corporation can be a bulldozer (it doesn't just appear to be a bulldozer)
with three people sitting in the driver compartment and two people decided it should run over a house. And the bulldozer did not just "appear" to run over the house.
 

If you don't want to address the information previously posted, fine, but that will end the debate.

Title: Re: Liberty Lovers !!!! The idea of the State is NOT your enemy.
Post by: ReasonableVoice on February 04, 2014, 12:21:10 AM
To allow the "corporation" to be immune from liability (as you seem to suggest) would
mean anyone wishing to commit harm could simply create a corporation to do the harm and then the natural person would have immunity.

WHAT? I said exactly the opposite.
I said you "seemed to suggest" that because you indicated that the individuals within the corporation were liable, and did not indicate that the corporation itself was liable.

QUOTE: "The corporation can't make decisions. The individuals on the board made the decisions. They're the individuals responsible."

That's how corporations are now because governments have made it so. Therein lies the problem. Governments created the problem so I don't see them as the solution.

That is NOT how corporations are now though it may "appear" that way for "some" corporations. Therein lies the confusion.

Any immunity for certain corporations only happens by corruption, not based on the Rule of law.
I admit that the government is corrupt to a high degree, but that does not change the Rule of law. Just because the constitution is not followed does not mean the constitution is changed - it means corruption(violation of constitution) is taking place.

All corporations are liable - (and when Rule of law is restored properly - WILL be held liable)
and while individual natural persons of corporations are also sought after for harm caused, the corporations themselves are held liable for restitution.

But to claim that all corporations are not liable is not reasonable - have you not heard of BP cases, etc ?

The government is not the problem - CORRUPTION in the government IS the problem.

We must focus on the matador, not his cape, to defeat the enemy.

If we focus on the cape, the matador will slide a sword into our skull.


TOPIC TITLE: Liberty Lovers !!!!  The idea of the State is NOT your enemy.

It is those corrupt persons within government(and above(influential controllers of the government - corporate think tank, round tables, corporation x y z, etc ) that are the enemy.
Title: Re: Liberty Lovers !!!! The idea of the State is NOT your enemy.
Post by: dalebert on February 04, 2014, 09:08:23 PM
I said you "seemed to suggest" that because you indicated that the individuals within the corporation were liable, and did not indicate that the corporation itself was liable.

Individuals can use the corporation to avoid personal liability due to governments. Everyone involved in an organization should be liable to the extent they were involved. At a bare minimum, they can lose the money they invested if the corp is sued, but it might be more to the extent that they knew about a decision, so yes, the corp is and should remain liable. Everyone invested with the understanding about how the corp would be run and the individuals who would be making decisions with their resources (driving the bulldozer), so they knew what they were getting into.

Quote
Any immunity for certain corporations only happens by corruption, not based on the Rule of law.
I admit that the government is corrupt to a high degree, but that does not change the Rule of law. Just because the constitution is not followed does not mean the constitution is changed - it means corruption(violation of constitution) is taking place.

Yes, but power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Consolidating power in one place (monopoly government) is getting close to absolute power. That's a recipe for disaster, IMHO.
Title: Re: Liberty Lovers !!!! The idea of the State is NOT your enemy.
Post by: dalebert on February 04, 2014, 09:43:36 PM
That said, I would address that topic by lumping
Liberty Lovers (not just anarchists) who are willing to take action into one group
and everyone else into another group.

I mean to respond to this and it slipped by the wayside. I was going to commend you for a direct answer. This is what I mean by arguing tactics instead of the one difference in philosophy that probably has no bearing on progress.

Quote
and the percentage of the population that actually took the field in 1776 was not very large.

With that perspective, I don't see the elephant as anything more than a gnat.

Especially with the record gun sales (even admitted in the corporate run media).
 
Defensive violence is not outside of NAP :-0)

Aaaaaaaand then you lost me again. You'll probably convert me to minarchy before you convince me to join a violent overthrow op. ;)
Title: Re: Liberty Lovers !!!! The idea of the State is NOT your enemy.
Post by: ReasonableVoice on February 04, 2014, 10:48:14 PM
Individuals can use the corporation to avoid personal liability due to governments.

I disagree if that is meant as a blanket statement.
It's not that they "can" avoid liability, but that they "can TRY" to avoid liability.
That is, there is not a guarantee they will not be caught and held liable.
Further, I would disagree that such attempt to possibly avoid liability is "due to governments".
That opportunity to try to avoid liability is inherent in the corporation(group) decision making process regardless of governments. Yes, perhaps government could exercise closer oversight to lessen the opportunity but when weighed against keeping the society healthy, is the possibility of getting caught enough imposition ? An unfortunate balance that is required, but the balance should always swing toward the health of the society(re: NAP).

Even with an LLC(Limited Liability Corporation), the portion of a person's investment in a corporation is at risk(civil liability), as the LLC only protects the person's personal property outside of the corporation.
And CRIMINAL liability is not limited at all by an LLC.


Everyone involved in an organization should be liable to the extent they were involved.
I agree completely if you also mean that the corporation itself is also liable in addition to those individuals involved.
Having said that, I also believe the the extent of harm and portions of liability for each needs to be determined by a process that reduces arbitrariness, that is, determined by a process used by society at large(universal process).
Reduction in arbitrariness contributes toward the health of the society[NAP].


Yes, but power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Consolidating power in one place (monopoly government) is getting close to absolute power. That's a recipe for disaster, IMHO.
I agree, as would most any reasonable person. Which is why, at a minimum, a better constitution than the one currently in place is needed for the future.

But don't get me wrong, the corruption taking place is not the fault of the current constitution.
No  constitution is self executing. It is the Responsibility of the society to KEEP WATCH.
When the society becomes prosperous, it become lazy/decadent/etc and fails to KEEP sufficient WATCH.
THAT is how we got to where we are today with corruption now fairly wide-spread.

The Declaration of Independence and the Constitution identifies Responsibilities(Duties) of society
but those documents cannot force society to take their responsibility or do their duty.

A central Constitution is a form of SELF GOVERNANCE at the SOCIETY GROUP level.
Society "can TRY" to avoid the liability for not performing its responsibility.

 
 
Title: Re: Liberty Lovers !!!! The idea of the State is NOT your enemy.
Post by: ReasonableVoice on February 04, 2014, 11:06:35 PM
This is what I mean by arguing tactics instead of the one difference in philosophy that probably has no bearing on progress.
Sorry, you lost me there.  What tactics and what one difference ?



You'll probably convert me to minarchy before you convince me to join a violent overthrow op. ;)
I don't see that there would be much defensive violence needed, after all the global controllers number less than 10,000 world wide, and as few as 1,000,000 active patriots world wide means they would be out numbered 100 to 1.


Peace is the way.

But being prepared for defensive violence can help open the door for peace to take the lead.

No patriot wants violence, but when the offensive violence against society refuses to cease,
there comes a point when the process of restitution must begin.

And participating in combat is certainly not the only way to help (re)implement the Rule of law.
In most battles, the people in support roles far out number those on the front line - and they are all equally important and necessary for success.

Title: Re: Liberty Lovers !!!! The idea of the State is NOT your enemy.
Post by: ReasonableVoice on February 04, 2014, 11:16:21 PM
so yes, the corp is and should remain liable
Progress.

So then now . . .

Do you accept that society-wide application of "NAP governance (freedom/responsibility)"
necessarily requires a balancing aspect between individuals and groups ?

And if so . . .
Do you accept that I have NOT mostly incorrectly thrown around the term NAP ?

Title: Re: Liberty Lovers !!!! The idea of the State is NOT your enemy.
Post by: dalebert on February 05, 2014, 11:28:42 AM
Reduction in arbitrariness contributes toward the health of the society[NAP].

It's not reduced arbitrariness. It's just consistent. That doesn't make it better than a market-based approach. Quite the contrary if you believe in free markets. If you believe that consistency is so beneficial to the health of society, why not have a central power control how to do everything; not just services for defending rights?

"A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds, adored by little statesmen and philosophers and divines." (http://www.bartleby.com/100/420.47.html)

I believe in the free market and I think a free market approach to defending our rights is better just as a free market approach is the best way for providing all the other goods and services that society needs. Defense of rights is another service. Your premise seems to be that we all have to, right now, via some sort of majority vote process or election of authorities or something, come up with a document that specifies right and wrong. Otherwise, people might come to different conclusions about right and wrong, and they could come to the wrong conclusions. But think of this. YOUR document might be wrong and now it's being enforced with violence and stifling innovation that could come from the free market toward resolving our differences about what we believe to be right or wrong.
Title: Re: Liberty Lovers !!!! The idea of the State is NOT your enemy.
Post by: dalebert on February 05, 2014, 11:38:51 AM
Sorry, you lost me there.  What tactics and what one difference ?

Tactics = overthrowing the current authorities.
Difference = minarchist vs. anarchist.

Quote
I don't see that there would be much defensive violence needed, after all the global controllers number less than 10,000 world wide, and as few as 1,000,000 active patriots world wide means they would be out numbered 100 to 1.

The leaders, sure. But they have thousands of enforcers with billions of dollars of weaponry and technology at their disposal thoroughly brainwashed from childhood to be obedient to "the" government. It wouldn't be that bad if we could just convince those guys not to obey, but here's the thing.

They are convinced that it's important to obey the government, even if the government is behaving in an obviously immoral manner, probably because they were indoctrinated all their lives into the idea that having one authority was extremely important because at least it's consistent. Or maybe the words they used were something like "non-arbitrary".
Title: Re: Liberty Lovers !!!! The idea of the State is NOT your enemy.
Post by: dalebert on February 05, 2014, 11:50:52 AM
Do you accept that I have NOT mostly incorrectly thrown around the term NAP ?

No, and here's why. You would work with some others who mostly agree with you to create some organization. The purpose of the organization would be to defend rights. So far, so good.

But then someone else might make an organization with the same goals. Their document describing their policies for resolving right vs. wrong might differ from yours and some folks might feel it's better. Maybe some corporations (the individuals running it, rather. hehe) would think their document and/or ability to defend their rights are better than yours and pay their defense fees to them instead of you. They might even think your organization is tyrannical (I'd agree) and feel the need for a defense service against your organization. Due to your obsession with this notion of consistency or non-arbitrariness or whatever you want to call it, you seem convinced that only your organization can be allowed to fulfill that service of defending rights, something I find to be irrational as I believe in free markets. Just by the act of them choosing a different service provider, you would (I believe) feel justified in using violence to stop them from choosing a different service in the market, and I would consider that to be a clear violation of the NAP.
Title: Re: Liberty Lovers !!!! The idea of the State is NOT your enemy.
Post by: ReasonableVoice on February 05, 2014, 01:20:48 PM
Tactics = overthrowing the current authorities.
Not sure what you mean by this still.

The current authority is "we the people". It may not "appear" that way, but appearance does not change fact.

If by "current authorities" you mean those in administrative positions of government who are
currently committing offensive violence against "we the people"(society)
then "overthrow" is not really an appropriate description.
When you fire/remove an administrator that has failed to perform the
job for which they were hired(or elected), that is not an overthrow.

Overthrow would be appropriate for describing changing from governance of society to non-governance of society.


Difference = minarchist vs. anarchist.
I agree that is a difference, and in many respects not a big difference at a local governance level.


The leaders, sure. But they have thousands of enforcers with billions of dollars of weaponry and technology at their disposal thoroughly brainwashed from childhood to be obedient to "the" government.
We are obviously discussing opinion(view) rather than easily quantifiable facts here, but  . . .

In my opinion :

The tide is often barely discernible, but its influence is powerful.
It's power is of little notice until it pushes through or over a retaining wall.

Though there are many examples, recently, the enforcers joined with the people's view in mass in Italy.
The undercurrent of that tide is present in most countries around the globe today.

Yes, there are some in the camp(brainwash) you mention, but when the tide turns, their numbers are insignificant.
 

Title: Re: Liberty Lovers !!!! The idea of the State is NOT your enemy.
Post by: ReasonableVoice on February 05, 2014, 02:07:16 PM
Reduction in arbitrariness contributes toward the health of the society[NAP].

It's not reduced arbitrariness. It's just consistent.
I presume you are referring to "universal application".
I realize that(consistency) is a logical extrapolation of my statement in that regard, but that is not the totality of what I meant.

I agree that "universal application" is not "reduced arbitrariness" in and of itself.
I said that it "contributes" to reduction in arbitrariness and it does that by "providing" a consistent process across society at large.

That is, whatever society-wide NAP laws are in place (example: no theft)
a process of determining the proper restitution being universally applied across society at large
would contribute to reduction in arbitrariness.

Having numerous differing processes for determining proper restitution for society-wide NAP laws
would allow increased opportunity for arbitrariness.

"Rule of law" processes(services) stand apart from most other processes in that
they are a large part of providing for the health of a society.



If you believe that consistency is so beneficial to the health of society, why not have a central power tell how to do everything; not just services for defending rights?
I'm glad you asked that.
This question goes to the core of minarcism.
There is a level of imposing (whether process consistency or anything else) above which the imposing is no longer beneficial to a healthy society. The current monstrositism(far from minarcism) makes that plain.

There is a balancing point implied in minarcism.
Imposition should never go below what is needed for a healthy society and should never go above where a society would become unhealthy (as is the case today).

Many current (brainwashed)judiciary members fail to understand this core principle of minarcism.
And that lack of understanding has lead to adding, adding, adding imposition which pushed society into an unhealthy state(status).


HTTP A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds, adored by little statesmen and philosophers and divines.
Agreed.


I believe in the free market
I do too, so long as that free market remains within the confines of NAP.


I think a free market approach to defending our rights is better just as a free market approach is the best way for providing all the other goods and services that society needs.
This is a nubulous statement.
I agree but likely with different meaning poured out of it.

The "best way" must be backed up with a guarantee that that way is available and remains available society-wide
for those things which are requirements for maintaining a healthy society at large.



Your premise seems to be that we all have to, right now, via some sort of majority vote process or election of authorities or something, come up with a document that specifies right and wrong. Otherwise, people might come to different conclusions about right and wrong, and they could come to the wrong conclusions.
That would be a misunderstanding.
The premise is that an IDEA(NAP) requires a way to IMPLEMENT the IDEA and that the implementation should reduce arbitrariness sufficiently for a health society.

Minarcism is a term I have used to describe that premise.


But think of this. YOUR document might be wrong
First, it would not be MY document alone. Just as it would not be ME alone implementing it.
It would be a document of "we the people" and "we the people" would be the ones implementing it.

And, with "we the people" KEEPING WATCH, and ability for "we the people" to AMEND the document
it has the potential to govern successfully indefinitely.


now it's being enforced with violence and stifling innovation ,
Agreed, and why? SOCIETY failed to KEEP WATCH (take responsibility / do duty).

The "idea of the state(minarcism)" did not cause that.
The "constitution" did not cause that.

Failure to properly maintain the implementation caused that.
Title: Re: Liberty Lovers !!!! The idea of the State is NOT your enemy.
Post by: ReasonableVoice on February 05, 2014, 02:54:39 PM
Do you accept that I have NOT mostly incorrectly thrown around the term NAP ?

No, and here's why. You would work with some others who mostly agree with you to create some organization. The purpose of the organization would be to defend rights. So far, so good.

But then someone else might make an organization with the same goals. Their document describing their policies for resolving right vs. wrong might differ from yours and some folks might feel it's better. Maybe some corporations (the individuals running it, rather. hehe) would think their document and/or ability to defend their rights are better than yours and pay their defense fees to them instead of you. They might even think your organization is tyrannical (I'd agree) and feel the need for a defense service against your organization. Due to your obsession with this notion of consistency or non-arbitrariness or whatever you want to call it, you seem convinced that only your organization can be allowed to fulfill that service of defending rights, something I find to be irrational as I believe in free markets. Just by the act of them choosing a different service provider, you would (I believe) feel justified in using violence to stop them from choosing a different service in the market, and I would consider that to be a clear violation of the NAP.
Right at the start you identify an example of a "group".
(And you have concurred that the group should remain liable.)
And in order for a group to be liable within a NAP society at large
there must be some governance over "groups".
And for the society to be healthy, that governance over groups
must not be seen as arbitrary by society at large.

For example:
If a group is created tasked with doing harm and that group moves from place to place in society at large
doing harm and moving on to the next place, the free market fails unless the free markat solution is avaialble everywhere.
At even then, the free market does not guarantee that solution to remain in place.


Back to general discussion --

Using a free market solution for anything provides no guarantee
that the solution is available everywhere in society at large
or that it will remain so.

Therefore; those things required for a healthy society at large cannot be left to the free market(without governance and imposition when necessary) such as defense of the society at large ("large land mass" defense if you will).

That said, the minarcist solution does not prevent the market from offering competing solutions
to those requirements of a healthy society.
And in as much as the market does offer a certain amount of competing service,
that can help reduce the amount of that service which must be imposed.
(examples:  FED EX and UPS make for a smaller need for USPS
and private lawyers reduce the need to impose hiring of more public defenders for society, etc )

 -- "Due to your obsession with this notion of consistency or non-arbitrariness"
It is not an obsession,
it is a factually based conclusion about what is required for a healthy society.
The amount of arbitrariness in use today is solid evidence that
arbitrariness in the "Rule of law" leads to unhealthy society.
 
A "Rule of law" whose implementation seeks to reduce arbitrariness is required for a healthy society.

-- "you would (I believe) feel justified in using violence to stop them from choosing
 a different service in the market, and I would consider that to be a clear violation of the NAP.

And you would be incorrect.
The market could compete in defense services (Blackwater, Raytheon, Boing, other military industrial complex, et al.
but those "groups" would not have free reign, that is, they would be subject to the implementation of NAP in society.
And if the market began to recede (eg. Boing and others went bankrupt, began causing harm, etc) then imposition would elevate to ensure no lack of the service required for a healthy society.


Your objections have been addressed,
so do you accept that I have NOT mostly incorrectly thrown around the term NAP ?

Title: Re: Liberty Lovers !!!! The idea of the State is NOT your enemy.
Post by: dalebert on February 05, 2014, 03:05:57 PM
I agree that "universal application" is not "reduced arbitrariness" in and of itself.
I said that it "contributes" to reduction in arbitrariness and it does that by "providing" a consistent process across society at large.

So really quite very broadly consistent. We're back to consistency.

HTTP A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds, adored by little statesmen and philosophers and divines.
Agreed.

You say that now, but then why are you still stuck on consistency being the answer to rights protection when you admit it's not good for any other goods and services?

That is, whatever society-wide NAP laws are in place (example: no theft)
a process of determining the proper restitution being universally applied across society at large
would contribute to reduction in arbitrariness.

So your organization would not, in fact, steal money from corporations to fund itself (theft) and would not use violence to stop a competing defense organization from forming and offering its services as an alternative?

Having numerous differing process for determining proper restitution for society-wide NAP laws
would allow increased opportunity for arbitrariness.

You call arbitrary what I call choices in a free market and therefore more accountability to customers and a better environment for governance to evolve along with all other goods and services. And that keeps raising the question--why are choices bad for this but not for other goods and services?

I believe in the free market
I do too, so long as that free market remain within the confines of NAP.

"So long as?" That's redundant. Anything that is imposed is not part of the free market and therefore not within the confines of the NAP. The free market is defined by the NAP.
Title: Re: Liberty Lovers !!!! The idea of the State is NOT your enemy.
Post by: dalebert on February 05, 2014, 03:26:07 PM
Using a free market solution for anything provides no guarantee
that the solution is available everywhere in society at large
or that it will remain so.

By that exact same reasoning, we can't trust the free market to provide food or shealter or healthcare so a government needs to.

A "Rule of law" whose implementation seeks to reduce arbitrariness is required for a healthy society.

O... M... G... You've stated this, I think, four times just in this one post and many, many times in previous posts. Do you still not understand that THIS IS THE POINT that we disagree on? This argumentative fallacy is called "begging the question". You are starting from the position that the very thing we are discussing has already been concluded and using it as evidence to prove the thing we are discussing.

My belief is that a society is healthier with a free market in all things. Your belief, like all minarchists, is that a society is healthier with a free market in all but one thing. Stating your belief, no matter how many times, is not an argument for the belief. Stating it and proclaiming that it is fact is not an argument for it. It's begging the question.

so do you accept that I have NOT mostly incorrectly thrown around the term NAP ?

Oddly no, despite your brilliant tactic of restating your position about a HUNDRED FUCKING TIMES NOW!
Title: Re: Liberty Lovers !!!! The idea of the State is NOT your enemy.
Post by: ReasonableVoice on February 05, 2014, 03:31:12 PM
I will hold off until at least tomorrow for responding
to allow any edits and so that I can then consolidate our replies from three strings back into one thread.
Title: Re: Liberty Lovers !!!! The idea of the State is NOT your enemy.
Post by: ReasonableVoice on February 06, 2014, 11:11:22 AM
I didn’t see a response to the third string, but at least i HAVE combined two strings into one - -

PART I

I agree that "universal application" is not "reduced arbitrariness" in and of itself.
I said that it "contributes" to reduction in arbitrariness and it does that by "providing" a consistent process across society at large.
So really quite very broadly consistent. We're back to consistency.
We’re not back to consistency, we never left it.
Consistency is a major contributor to implementation of the idea of “universal application”.
So major that without consistency, the idea of “universal application” could not be implemented.
I presumed that would be a given for without the one the other could not exist,
but at least now I can see why the objection was raised.

I clarified that consistency “contributes” to non-arbitrariness.
“consistency” contributes by providing the manner which allows non-arbitrariness to be implemented i.e. universal application.

The “Rule of law”(NAP) should be the BASIS for governance (not government, governance).
This is the base premise of the entire topic, so please identify if you disagree.
To  implement a non-arbitrary “Rule of law”, such as NAP, in a society-wide manner
implies that a manner of implantation is required that will apply NAP to all of society.
Consistency (universal application) in this context means that NAP is to be applied to all individuals and groups in society.
IF inconsistent application, or arbitrary application, of NAP within society is what you support, please identify that since that is a base premise; otherwise, the need for consistency as a manner of implementing NAP will be considered(by me) as an agreed upon issue.
That is, if there are people or groups in society for which NAP should not be implemented, please identify those individuals or groups which you believe should NOT have NAP applied to them; otherwise, universal application of NAP will be presumed to be an agreed upon issue.

HTTP A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds, adored by little statesmen and philosophers and divines.
Agreed.
You say that now, but then why are you still stuck on consistency being the answer to rights protection when you admit it's not good for any other goods and services?
Your statement, “you admit it's not good for any other goods and services”, is false.
( How you came up with that I cannot figure. )
And I am not stuck, you simply did not understand.
Hopefully the above response leads to understanding.

As for services, “consistency” allows for a society-wide implementation of X, Y, and Z
The reason that the central governance portion of minarcism is called “central” is because it applies to all parts of the entire society.
Therefore, all services involved with central governance necessarily require consistent application to all parts of the entire society.
The services NOT required for a healthy society at large would NOT require consistency (universal application) although they “could be consistent” if that’s what the market chose.


That is, whatever society-wide NAP laws are in place (example: no theft)
a process of determining the proper restitution being universally applied across society at large
would contribute to reduction in arbitrariness.
So your organization would not, in fact, steal money from corporations to fund itself (theft) and would not use violence to stop a competing defense organization from forming and offering its services as an alternative?
Correct.
HOWEVER – A corporation purchasing opportunity does not equate to stealing from the corporation.
Corporations are not natural persons. And society at large(we the people) owns the opportunities to do business in the society; therefore, we the people ( represented through minarcism governance ) could sell those opportunities to corporations (i.e. corporation tax).
If you do not agree that society at large(we the people) owns the opportunities to do business in the society then please identify that since it is a base premise in implementing NAP.
The corporation(NON-natural person) is not required to do business in society so it is not being FORCED to purchase opportunity(by paying tax). And if it chooses not to purchase opportunity, it would starve to death . . . because it is not a natural person. A corporation can lay dormant for centuries and then be active a little while and then go dormant again – strange creatures huh?
If a corporation wants to STEAL the opportunities that belong to the natural persons,
then defensive force against that corporation is completely in keeping with NAP.
Even though groups are not the same creatures as individuals, opportunity for each is of the same nature, in that, with opportunity comes responsibility.

When opportunity is purchased, that opportunity is indivisible from responsibility; otherwise;
immunity could be purchased – and that would lead to arbitrariness in society.



Having numerous differing process for determining proper restitution for society-wide NAP laws
would allow increased opportunity for arbitrariness.
You call arbitrary what I call choices in a free market

What I call arbitrary, I also call choices in a free market, so we agree on that.

 
that keeps raising the question--why are choices bad for this but not for other goods and services?
Yes, the question is about non-arbitrary. What does THAT mean ?
First, I hope you understand that use of “non-arbitrary”  is referencing only those processes/services which are required for a healthy society ( i.e. society-wide NAP laws ).
Beyond that, “non-arbitrary” does not necessarily preclude choice, but rather imposes a requirement to choose.
So the question becomes more like.  Why impose a requirement to choose ?
A “choice” implies possibility of not choosing. Not choosing is like leaving a void.
Consistency/ universal application/ non-arbitrary does NOT mean there is no choice involved at all
it means that a choice must be made, that is, that a void cannot exist.

Example,
Mother: Here, since you are hungry (stomach is VOID of food) choose broccoli or spinach to eat.
Child: [ runs outside to play without eating ] (leaves a VOID in stomach)

Certain things, like the “Rule of law” cannot be left void and still maintain a healthy society.
KEY POINT: Consistency/ universal application/ non-arbitrary/ required choice – all these mean the same basic thing -- that service XYZ cannot be allowed to become void  ( Markets provide no guarantee of a service XYZ remaining available ).

That said, a certain amount of choice can fill areas of governance (RE FedEx/UPS into USPS area, etc) but if the choices part reverts to void(FexEx and UPS cease operations) then minarcism would impose something to fill the void, presuming postal service is necessary for a healthy society – it used to be but with the internet, maybe ensuring the telecommunications market did not become void would suffice – yes, I think the USPS could be shut down now :-0)
This does not rule out private arbitration panels, etc, in the area of “rights protection” but when satisfaction cannot be had in any “choices” that may be created, and since those private panels might not follow the NAP(Rule of law) then there must always be the “Rule of law”(i.e. NAP governance) to which an appeal can be made.
That is, if a private rights protection service fails to apply NAP properly, then the responsibility implied in NAP has not been accepted(or at least acted on), thus there is a void of responsibility.
When Responsibility for Liberty is allowed to become void(i.e. not taking responsibility for a harmful action) then the responsibility must be imposed(minarcism) for the health of the society.
KEY POINT: An implementation of the idea of NAP as a society-wide implementation IS NOT currently (nor has it ever been) provided by the free market.
However, a society-wide implementation of NAP can be provided by “we the people” as implemented in the form of a “NAP constitution” (implements liberty/responsibility without allowing void).


I believe in the free market
I do too, so long as that free market remain within the confines of NAP.
"So long as?" That's redundant. Anything that is imposed is not part of the free market and therefore not within the confines of the NAP. The free market is defined by the NAP.
You made false claims here so let’s break them apart.
#1 - "So long as?" That's redundant.
It is not redundant as you can be see by drilling into the other false claims.
#2 - Anything that is imposed is not part of the free market and therefore not within the confines of the NAP.
This falsely equates “the free market” with “the confines of the NAP”.
The black market is certainly within the free market, yet many in the black market do not abide by the confines of the NAP, right ?
The NAP is not self-implementing anymore than the current constitution.
Do you believe the NAP implies Responsibility is part of Liberty ?
If not – that is a base premise for us to navigate.


#3 - The free market is defined by the NAP ?
How so ?The free market can do all sorts of harmful things and not take responsibility for those things.




PART II

Using a free market solution for anything provides no guarantee
that the solution is available everywhere in society at large
or that it will remain so.
By that exact same reasoning, we can't trust the free market to provide food or shealter or healthcare so a government needs to.
Using the same (required for healthy society) reasoning for a different type of service
would not be logical.
Again, the distinction is those things which are required for the health of a society at large.
The logic of guarantee to exist (not be void) applies only to those things.

Has the free market ever ceased to provide food, or shelter, or healthcare in parts of the society ?
If and when they do, then we ask –are providing those things, in those places, required for the health of the society ?
And if answered yes, then determination must be made as to implementation - How? How much ? How long ? etc.

The core of an implementation of NAP in society is the Rule of law (addressing the Responsibility side of Liberty).
Has Anarchy ever left a void of the Rule of law in society?




A "Rule of law" whose implementation seeks to reduce arbitrariness is required for a healthy society.
O... M... G... You've stated this, I think, four times just in this one post and many, many times in previous posts. Do you still not understand that THIS IS THE POINT that we disagree on?
. . .
This argumentative fallacy is called "begging the question".
Why should it matter how many times something is stated it as long as it is stated in proper context and the statement has not been refuted(that I knew of) ?
You say THIS IS THE POINT but this statement encompasses MANY POINTS
so where the disagreement specifically lays is not clear by simply disagreeing to this statement.

argumentative fallacy?  "begging the question" ?
“begging the question” is a very subjective thing.
Making claims is a primary implementation aspect of any debate.
Many debates will state various claims and then clarifications, questions, and arguments will be put forth on those claims with which there is disagreement. ( This previous statement is a claim itself. And to state this claim is not an argumentative fallacy or any other kind of fallacy. Reality check. )
 I made various claims which had been agreed upon (or so I thought) and then made this statement which combined some of those claims together based upon what was logical agreement(or so I thought).
Having made claims which were thought to have been agreed upon and then
stating a logical combination of those claims is NOT an “argumentative fallacy”.
Stating a logical combination IS valid(true) argumentation when based on prior agreed upon claims.
I thought the claims making up the combination had been agreed upon, but apparently not, so we need to determine which of the claims making up the combination are at issue still.
I want to reduce future claims about false manners of debate itself so I hope you understand what I just said.

Again, “begging the question” is a very subjective thing.
If, in fact, there is a question that is raised(begged/etc) in your mind,
then it would be helpful for you to identify exactly what the question is
so that the issue(s) of the question can be verified, clarified, etc.


Let’s try to pull the debate back to the claim(s) you have disagreement with.
Please indicate which of the claims below with which you agree with and those with which you do not agree.
There may be more, but here’s some of the claims I have made (whether directly or indirectly) --
1 - Responsibility is inherent in the NAP.
2 - arbitrariness in governance leads away from health of a society
3 - An “idea” is not the same as ”implementation of the idea”.
4 – NAP is an IDEA, “Rule of law” is an IDEA
5 - "Nap/Rule of law" equates to governance (not necessarily “a government”)
6 - NAP is an idea about a specific type of “Rule of law”(governance)
7 - implementation of NAP society-wide reduces arbitrariness of Rule of law within a society at large
8 - NAP should be implemented society-wide for a healthy society at large.
9 - implementation of NAP society-wide requires a balancing between individuals and groups.
10 – Minarcism(in the meaning as used herein) is a form of implementation of NAP/Rule of law/governance which can implement NAP in a society-wide manner.
These claims above (though there may be more) may logically culminate in the statement --
A "Rule of law"(IDEA = NAP) whose “implementation seeks to reduce arbitrariness”(MINARCISM/IMPLEMENTATION OF IDEA = NAP) is required for a healthy society.
I thought you had agrees to the claims above, but since you disagree with this statement,
let’s identify where disagreement is in the underlying claims before processing a
combination of the claims in a logically concluding statement like this.


My belief is that a society is healthier with a free market in all things.
I think we should either continue with my claims or stop and pursue your claims.
You pick.
If pursuing your claims, I would start with a few questions of clarification, like  . . .
What do you mean by free market ?
Does the free market encompass all members of human(natural person) society ?
Does the free market encompass corporations as well ?
Should NAP be implemented in all of the free market ?
Would NAP be implemented differently between natural persons and corporations ?
That is, would there be balancing required to implement NAP among individuals and corporations ?
This is a sample of questions, as there would likely be more.
Title: Re: Liberty Lovers !!!! The idea of the State is NOT your enemy.
Post by: dalebert on February 07, 2014, 11:30:58 AM
That's too long. I'm not reading it. Don't bother quoting and replying in length to each little thing. Try to summarize. Or at least pick something and we can handle one thing at a time. There's no rush. The gubment ain't goin' nowhere anyway.

Ain't nobody got time fer dat!
Title: Re: Liberty Lovers !!!! The idea of the State is NOT your enemy.
Post by: ReasonableVoice on February 07, 2014, 01:37:26 PM
That's too long. I'm not reading it. Don't bother quoting and replying in length to each little thing. Try to summarize. Or at least pick something and we can handle one thing at a time. There's no rush. The gubment ain't goin' nowhere anyway.

Ain't nobody got time fer dat!


Please indicate which of the claims below with which you agree with and those with which you do not agree.

Then I'll try to take the items of disagreement one at a time in as logical order as possible (for my small brain).

1 - Responsibility is inherent in the NAP.
2 - arbitrariness in governance leads away from health of a society
3 - An “idea” is not the same as ”implementation of the idea”.
4 – NAP is an IDEA, “Rule of law” is an IDEA
5 - "Nap/Rule of law" equates to governance (not necessarily “a government”)
6 - NAP is an idea about a specific type of “Rule of law”(governance)
7 - implementation of NAP society-wide reduces arbitrariness of Rule of law within a society at large
8 - NAP should be implemented society-wide for a healthy society at large.
9 - implementation of NAP society-wide requires a balancing between individuals and groups.
10 – Minarcism(in the meaning as used herein) is a form of implementation of NAP/Rule of law/governance which can implement NAP in a society-wide manner.
Title: Re: Liberty Lovers !!!! The idea of the State is NOT your enemy.
Post by: dalebert on February 07, 2014, 02:36:51 PM
Every single one of those has been discussed at length. You know my position and I know yours. You seem to enjoy repeating yourself endlessly but I don't. Let's try to get back to your core premise. There's nothing wrong with a small, monopoly form of government. It's just an issue of implementation.

So let's say you somehow get your hands on the power you need to implement your ideas on a broad scale. Tell me what would be fundamentally different about your implementation that would make it work over, for instance, the constitutional government put in place by the founding fathers.

Title: Re: Liberty Lovers !!!! The idea of the State is NOT your enemy.
Post by: ReasonableVoice on February 07, 2014, 03:09:10 PM
Every single one of those has been discussed at length. You know my position and I know yours.
If I knew, I wouldn't have asked, but I accept you don't wish to help me fully understand your disagreement.


Let's try to get back to your core premise. There's nothing wrong with a small, monopoly form of government. It's just an issue of implementation.
You are begging the question :-0)

I never said there was nothing wrong with minarcism, nor do I think that.
But it certainly is not the enemy.


Tell me what would be fundamentally different about your implementation that would make it work over, for instance, the constitutional government put in place by the founding fathers.
Liberty was significant and wide spread for decades after the constitutional government
which was put in place by the founding fathers.
Then it grew and grew and grew due to the people allowing prosperity to block the people's attentiveness to the growth.

Logically. simply putting a government the same size in place would bring significant liberty.

Would the people fail again someday to maintain that liberty ? Probably, since it's the people that have to make societal self-governance CONTINUE to be successful, and people are apt to repeat history.

Title: Re: Liberty Lovers !!!! The idea of the State is NOT your enemy.
Post by: dalebert on February 08, 2014, 09:38:30 AM
If I knew, I wouldn't have asked, but I accept you don't wish to help me fully understand your disagreement.

You're right because I think you're playing dumb. It seems to be part of how you argue. And let's be perfectly clear--I'm not trying to convert you. You came here with a proverbial chip on your shoulder for anarchists and I'm just trying to convince you how pointless this debate is. That's speaking from experience.

You are begging the question :-0)

I never said there was nothing wrong with minarcism, nor do I think that.
But it certainly is not the enemy.

Actually, my point would be a straw man (https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/strawman). Get your logical fallacies straight.

Liberty was significant and wide spread for decades after the constitutional government
which was put in place by the founding fathers.
Then it grew and grew and grew due to the people allowing prosperity to block the people's attentiveness to the growth.

Logically. simply putting a government the same size in place would bring significant liberty.

Would the people fail again someday to maintain that liberty ? Probably, since it's the people that have to make societal self-governance CONTINUE to be successful, and people are apt to repeat history.

We agree that a smaller government is better than a larger one so I imagine we would have more freedom for a while. So regardless of the governments or defense services in place, liberty depends on changing individuals and getting them to take responsibility. On that much, we agree.

I'm so glad we were able to resolve this thread. Have a great weekend!
Title: Re: Liberty Lovers !!!! The idea of the State is NOT your enemy.
Post by: ReasonableVoice on February 08, 2014, 01:27:53 PM
You came here with a proverbial chip on your shoulder for anarchists
You can call it a chip on a shoulder if you wish, I call it a goal.
I suppose most any liberty activist with a goal could be considered as having a chip on a shoulder though.

My goal of posting here was to get people to think.
Thinking better about less wrong, particularly about two main issues :

Thinking about what NAP means in its fuller sense, not just the buzzwords and snipits that so many people seem to senselessly parrot as if that explains anything in a significantly useable form.

And thinking about how to implement that fuller sense in society successfully.

These three topics were all aimed at that goal --
- THREE QUESTIONS ??? FOR THE NAP(Non-Aggression Principle) ANARCHIST
- Liberty Lovers !!!! The idea of the State is NOT your enemy.
- What might the central governance of a NAP minarcism look like ?


You are begging the question :-0)

Actually, my point would be a strawman. Get your logical fallacies straight.
If you had thought something to be logically part of my position
then it would actually just be begging the question.

If you had NOT thought that to be part of my position
then, yes, strawman.

I don't like to call something a strawman when there's a chance that it might not be.


Logically. simply putting a government the same size in place would bring significant liberty.

We agree that a smaller government is better than a larger one so I imagine we would have more freedom for a while. So regardless of the governments or defense services in place, liberty depends on changing individuals and getting them to take responsibility. On that much, we agree.

I'm so glad we were able to resolve this thread. Have a great weekend!
Yes, and smaller governments are generally easier to control/change.

Have a great weekend !
Title: Re: Liberty Lovers !!!! The idea of the State is NOT your enemy.
Post by: dalebert on February 10, 2014, 08:52:53 AM
You can call it a chip on a shoulder if you wish, I call it a goal.
I suppose most any liberty activist with a goal could be considered as having a chip on a shoulder though.

My goal of posting here was to get people to think.

The forum has just a few people on it. If you really want to reach people with a message, you should call into the show.
Title: Re: Liberty Lovers !!!! The idea of the State is NOT your enemy.
Post by: ReasonableVoice on February 10, 2014, 10:24:33 AM
The forum has just a few people on it. If you really want to reach people with a message, you should call into the show.
I appreciate the suggestion but the show only allows time for buzzwords and snipits.
I have called in on topics much more brief than this one and get the
"we thank  you for your call tonight" before having a chance to expound.

Thanks anyway.
Title: Re: Liberty Lovers !!!! The idea of the State is NOT your enemy.
Post by: alaric89 on February 11, 2014, 06:19:46 PM
Well at least you would be moved to the front of the line on calls, so you wouldn't be on hold very long.