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

[dalebert]

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.

[dalebert]

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.

[ReasonableVoice]

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.

[ReasonableVoice]

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.

[dalebert]

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.

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.

[dalebert]

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.

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.

[ReasonableVoice]

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.

 
 

[ReasonableVoice]

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.

[ReasonableVoice]

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 ?

[dalebert]

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."

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.

[dalebert]

Sorry, you lost me there.  What tactics and what one difference ?

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

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".

[dalebert]

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.

[ReasonableVoice]

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.
 

[ReasonableVoice]

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.

[ReasonableVoice]

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 ?