The Free Talk Live BBS
Free Talk Live => The Polling Pit => Topic started by: FTL_Mark on February 10, 2006, 09:52:27 PM
-
Small Government Libertarian, but that is unfair. The only things that I want the government to handle are Roads, Police and Military.
This puts me in the same category as Neal Boortz.
Read below and vote! :P
-
Er ... allow me to reformat for easier reading:
* * * * * * * * * * * *
LAW AND VIOLENCE
by Roy Halliday
Pacifists
At one extreme are the Christian libertarians and the followers of Robert LeFevre who are opposed to all violence. They deny the right to self-defense as most people understand that right. For example, they regard forcible rape as a crime, but unlike other libertarians, they also regard violent resistance to forcible rape as a crime. To support this view they argue that you cannot use brute force to make a person virtuous, because if virtue is not chosen voluntarily it is not really virtue. So when a woman is attacked, she has the right to use moral reasoning to persuade her attacker to repent, but she has no right to use violence to impose her desire not to be raped.
There isn't much point in distinguishing between criminal and non-criminal behavior if you can't respond differently to them. In the non-violent legal system, the concepts of crime and law have no practical significance.
On the other hand, the pacifists are the only ones who believe that all relations between people should be voluntary and that it is always wrong to use violence to impose your will on others. My own view comes close to this, but I must concede that these extreme pacifists win the prize for being the purest and only consistent voluntaryists.
These extreme pacifists, or voluntaryists, also deserve the prize for being the world champions of self-ownership. No other philosophy is completely consistent with the idea that each individual has the absolute right to own himself.
Pacifists believe that laws should be enforced voluntarily. They are one of the four libertarian anarchist groups.
Self-Defense Libertarians
The nearest group to the pacifists, this group avoids the absurdities of extreme pacifism by accepting the common-sense view that the individual has the right to use brute force to defend himself against invasion. In other words, we believe in the right to self-defense, and we believe this right justifies the use of violence when the following three conditions are met:
1. The violence is directed only against someone who is invading someone's rights (aggressing).
2. The purpose of the violence is to stop that invasion.
3. The violence is necessary to stop the invasion.
We believe violence against a person without his consent is morally justified when all three of these conditions are satisfied, and only when all three of these conditions are satisfied.
Even though self-defense libertarianism occupies one of the few logical positions on the libertarian-violence spectrum, and even though it seems like a view that most people would find more acceptable than total pacifism, the fundamental law of the self-defense libertarians is the non-aggression principle. In this legal theory, intentional and unintentional violations of the non-aggression principle can be legally met by violent resistance. All other acts of violence imposed on someone without his consent are illegal.
Free-Market Reparationists
The next group of principled libertarians on the violence spectrum consists of those who oppose violence against people without their consent except for self-defense and to extract reparation from criminals and tortfeasors. I call them free-market reparationists because they believe the free-market can completely replace the State and because their belief in using violence to obtain reparation is their only deviation from the non-aggression principle.
Like the self-defense libertarians, the free-market reparationists believe it is legitimate to use violence against a criminal to stop him from committing a crime. However, unlike the self-defense libertarians, the free-market reparationists do no regard the right to self-defense against aggressors as an absolute right. Instead they believe criminals and tortfeasors lose this right to some extent and do not get their right to self-defense back in full until they have paid for their crimes and torts by compensating their victims. Consequently, in addition to condoning violence against a criminal to stop him from committing a crime, free-market reparationists condone the use of violence against criminals and tortfeasors to force them to make reparations.
The fundamental law of the free-market reparationists is a modified version of the non-aggression principle:
No man or group of men may aggress against the person or property of anyone else, except to force him to make reparations to the victims of his crimes and torts.
Free-Market Retributionists
This group, like the self-defense libertarians and the free-market reparationists, opposes the use of violence against anyone who has not violated someone's rights, so this group is still within the anarchist camp, along with the pacifists. But with regard to invaders, the free-market retributionists condone three reasons for violence: (1) for self-defense, (2) to force a criminal or tortfeasor to compensate his victim, and (3) to punish a criminal for his crime. The leading exponent of this point of view in the 20th century was Murray Rothbard. The Rothbardians probably constitute a majority of the individualist-anarchist wing of the libertarian movement. I have chosen to call them free-market retributionists to emphasize that they deviate from the non-aggression principle on the issue of punishment (as well as on the issue of reparation).
Like the free-market reparationists, the free-market retributionists do not believe in the absolute right to self-defense. They believe that criminals lose this right until they have compensated their victims and been punished for their crimes.
The free-market reparationists and the free-market retributionists try to reconcile their views with the non-aggression principle by arguing that forcing a criminal to make reparation and imposing physical punishment on a criminal are not examples of the initiation of force, because the criminal is the initiator of force, and reparation or retribution, like self-defense, is a response to aggression. The problem with this argument, as I see it, is that the violence used in legitimate self-defense occurs while a criminal or tortfeasor is initiating aggression, whereas the violence used for reparation or punishment generally takes place after the criminal or tortfeasor has stopped his aggression. Therefore, violence used to compel compensation to a victim or to punish a criminal constitutes a new round of aggression and violates the non-aggression principle.
The free-market retributionists appeal to our innate feeling that criminals deserve to be punished for their crimes. Few of us can deny that we derive satisfaction from seeing harm come to bad people. However, the pacifists, the self-defense libertarians, and the free-market reparationists reject coercive punishment. Instead, they say we should restrain our desire for retribution rather than inflict physical punishment on criminals without their consent.
In addition to the moral objections from the less violent libertarians, the free-market retributionists have to face the argument from the more violent libertarians who say that we need government to administer punishments.
What is the objectively correct punishment for stealing a car? A whip lashing, a prison sentence, community service, a fine-are all incommensurate and arbitrary. There is no conclusive answer. But surely to whip, imprison, enslave, or fine someone more than he deserves is a crime. That is why most retributionists agree that we need a government to select one schedule of punishments and impose it impartially on all criminals in society. (I believe that the free-market reparationists have a similar problem. There is no way to prove conclusively that any particular form or amount of compensation to a victim of a crime is exactly correct. So free-market reparationists risk violating the rights of criminals and tortfeasors by using violence to extract reparation without the criminal's or tortfeasor's consent.)
The fundamental law in the legal system of the free-market retributionists is a modified version of the non-aggression principle:
No man or group of men may aggress against the person or property of anyone else, except to force him to make reparations to the victims of his crimes and torts or to punish him for his crimes.
Minarchists
The minarchists are the next group on the scale of increasingly more violent libertarian legal theorists. They are called minarchists because they believe we need a very small State, whose functions are limited to enforcing justice and protecting us from criminals. Minarchists are morally opposed to the initiation of violence against people without their consent except as follows:
1. It is legitimate for anyone to use violence against aggressors in self-defense.
2. It is legitimate for designated government officials to use violence against convicted criminals (and tortfeasors) to force them to pay reparation to the victims of their crimes (or torts).
3. It is legitimate for designated government officials to use violence against convicted criminals to administer government-designated punishments.
4. It is legitimate for designated government officials to use violence against anyone to prevent him from competing with the government in assessing and enforcing reparations and punishments for crimes.
Unlike the anarchists, the minarchists condone the use of violence against people who have not violated anyone's rights. The fundamental legal principle of the minarchists is a highly modified version of the non-aggression principle:
No man or group of men may aggress against the person or property of anyone else, except for authorized agents of the State who may use aggression to (1) force a person to make reparations to the victims of his crimes or torts, (2) punish a person for his crimes, or (3) prevent anyone from competing with the State in administering punishment of criminals.
Limited-Government Libertarians
The most violent legal theory on the libertarian spectrum is the limited-government theory. The limited-government libertarians have the same view of violence as the minarchists, except that the limited-government libertarians believe the government needs to provide more functions and has to forcefully interfere in the lives of peaceful people more than the minarchists believe is necessary. The difference between the minarchists and the limited-government libertarians is that the highest legal principle of the minarchists is a uniform system for protecting rights and enforcing reparations and punishments, whereas the highest legal principle of the limited-government libertarians varies from one person to the next, depending on which services the individual wants the government to provide.
Because limited-government libertarians have a variety of reasons for holding their views, and because this is the least radical of the natural-rights-based libertarian groups, it is the largest libertarian group. It overlaps the non-libertarian mainstream of society. It includes principled libertarians who have not thought through their principles, and it includes people who place practical considerations above moral principles.
The fundamental legal principle of the limited-government libertarians, if they can be said to have any, could be the following version of the non-aggression principle, which is modified to such an extent that it might better be named the tyranny principle:
No man or group of men may aggress against the person or property of anyone else, except for authorized agents of the State who may force a person to make reparations to the victims of his crimes and torts or to punish a person for his crimes or to prevent a person from doing anything at all that the State has decided to prohibit or to compel a person to do anything at all that the State has decided to make mandatory.
This is a bit unfair to the limited-government libertarians, because they generally favor placing restrictions on the State, such as those listed in the Bill of Rights. But history has shown that such restrictions can be overcome, especially when the State insists on having the authority to interpret what the restrictions mean.
-
Minarchist
Until it's proven to me to be otherwise this is the least intrusive, yet functional, system available.
-
Minarchist
Until it's proven to me to be otherwise this is the least intrusive, yet functional, system available.
Anarcho-capitalism
Until it's proven to me to be otherwise this is the least intrusive, yet functional, system available.
-
Minarchist
-
Of the categories posted, I am definitely a free-market retributionist, but that's a hell of a mouthful. Anarcho-capitalist is much more to the point.
Minarchist
Until it's proven to me to be otherwise this is the least intrusive, yet functional, system available.
How do you know anarcho-capitalism is not functional? How do you define functional?
-
Before listening to FTL I considered my self a Libertarian but thanks to Ian I now consider my self a Anarcho-capitalist. Thanks Ian. :D
Same here, though I'm not sure whether to thank Ian or curse him. ;)
-
Somebody should boil that whole thing down into some bite sized pieces, and make it into a voting poll.
Any takers?
-
Minarchist, I guess.
-
This group, like the self-defense libertarians and the free-market reparationists, opposes the use of violence against anyone who has not violated someone's rights, so this group is still within the anarchist camp, along with the pacifists.
Hahahahahaha..... I'm an anarchist, but I don't believe in violence
That's rich.
I want to live there..... I'd own the country in a matter of weeks
-
Free Market Reparationist
I've added a poll, please vote!
-
I'm gonna count myself among the Limited Gov Libs, simply because I believe there needs to be a power structure in place. I will say I believe the elected officials should be held directly responsible for the power they wield, and should be criminally responsible for overstepping those boundaries in the event of being proven guilty for abuse of the power. Habitual criminals, violent thugs, gay bashers, rapists, and the like need to be crushed, and there needs to be a system to take those actions, for the safety of the peaceful citizen. Old people shouldnt need to fear for themselves within the boundaries of their homes, and people should be able to walk freely and go about their business without lawlessness charging at them. A system of law and order is possible among reasonable people, and should not be abandoned simply because the current system is flawed.
-
I'm still uncertain of my beliefs......I definately admire Libertarianism, and will support others join the movement as well- but my exact place on all the issues have yet to be decided(plus, is it just me, or is the '6 Libertarians' choices spread out in a needlessly complicated format? Self Defense? Torts? I'm wadding in too deep waters here.....)
-
Limited government and have been in that camp for years and years now. I have to be a pragmatist. If we are successful at reducing the government to it's constitutional limits then we can talk about removing more government. I use to think of myself as a Miniarchist but as defined in this poll I would have to say I am a Limited government Libertarian. I do think it is bias in the descriptions.
I am not clear but didn't the article state that Limited government Libs made up the majority? But who are the base or core Libertarian? I would hate to think they are the pussyfist Pacifists.
It seems that;
The Liberal base are a bunch of socialist that want to control all business transactions.
The Conservative base are a bunch of socialist that want to control all personal life transactions.
-
geo-mutualist...freemarket anti-capitalist.
-
I'm missing two types:
"Crackpot conspiracy-theorist" and "M-I-C-K-E-Y M-O-U-S-E-K-E-T-E-E-R" :)
Ok, maybe not libertarian-types, but nonetheless featured on the show at times..
-
In between reading the author's catagories and my first reply I've listened to the Friday show.
Going with the pet murder example given during the show I'll explain why I think levels lower than Miniarchist would not be fuctional. At the individual level you can choose to be any or none of these. I approach this as how each classification would work if it was the social order in a given place.
The Pacifist would go through a lot of cats. Their nonviolence encourages violence in this example as the violent members of society would go unchecked.
Self Defense Libertarians would be little better unless the person chose to murder the cat while the SDL'er was home. Once the cat is murdered (a process easily completed before the SDL'er can retrieve a weapon to defend his property - the cat) it seems all all the offender need do is step off the property.
The Free-Market Reparationists would go through a lot of cats. Perhaps even more than the Pacifists and Self Defense Libertarians as they would have means (the reparation) to buy more.
A Minarchist would want to be compensated for the economic value of the cat, if any, and have the person punished for their behavior. I happen to believe the threat of punishment is a deterrent, you may not. A Retributionist would want the person punished as well, but that leads us down the private law path. As I think Ian mentioned the cat may be priceless to you. Under a Reparationist, Self Defense or Pacifist system I - and anyone else who doesn't subscribe those principles - am encouraged to apply my own justice. There's no deterrent against future cat mudering if current cat muderers are not punished. And yes, I have an innate feeling people should be punished for their crimes as well. You can ostracize me all you wish and call me a beast, but if your system allows people to murder my cat I'm not going to much care if the people under that philosophy ostracize me from dawn to dusk. After all, once we're done fighting in the street I'll still have the cat murderer to conduct business with - for won't he too be ostracized?
While the Minarchist government's punishment may not be perfect it is a defense against vigilantism. One might say private law is little more than contracted vigilantism. To give a real life example of why I'm so opposed to this concept of private law consider the Pinkerton men. (what's a post without a wiki link? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pinkerton_National_Detective_Agency) If you don't like current police you sure wouldn't have liked the Pinks. Yet that's private law. Oh, but that was a long time ago. Hmm, how about an updated version? http://mediafilter.org/Images/CAQ/PcopsSRC1.jpg He, or the private company's advertising copy, look any more friendly than government cops?
The Limited-Government Libertarians, as described in the list, was too open ended for me to choose.
--BEB
-
One might say private law is little more than contracted vigilantism.
In that case, one might say that self-defense is vigilantism, or that Government is infact just vigilantism.
-
In that case, one might say that self-defense is vigilantism, or that Government is infact just vigilantism.
Interesting points. How I see it:
With vigilantism a new round of force is applied without due process. Do we agree on that definition? We're starting with a word that people have struggled to define, but for the purposes of this discussion will that work? I'm perfectly willing to revise if we disagree there.
Self-defense is not the initation of force; it is the reaction to force currently occurring. It could be argued is not force conducted without due process as it is clear at the time of an attack who the attacker is, even if their identity is not known. In this I am talking about defending yourself, not using force and claiming it was in self-defense. That could be vigilantism. Short of misusing the term to defend yourself from legal or social pressure I cannot stretch self-defense into vigilantism.
With Government you again have due process under the set laws. I suppose you could even limit your government to only be reactive to force, but I'm not of the opinion you need to go that far to avoid government being a vigilante system. Like before, if your rights are being violated then it could be.
--BEB
-
With vigilantism a new round of force is applied without due process. Do we agree on that definition?
'Due process' is doublespeak for 'whatever the hell we want'.
Self-defense is not the initation of force; it is the reaction to force currently occurring.
Then clearly a Protection Agency would not be vigilantism.
-
'Due process' is doublespeak for 'whatever the hell we want'.
Without going into whether it'd still be doublespeak in a government free system where private arbitrators are providing the process, I'll point out that I did make a distinction if your rights are being violated, which "whatever the hell we want" would be a case of.
Then clearly a Protection Agency would not be vigilantism.
Clearly a Protection Agency should not be.
-
In every way but practical application I fall into the Rothbard catagory.
For our purposes, I am a minarchist.
-
Question for the Free-Market Reparationists (like Ian):
"Spanky" has gone off his rocker. He's decided it would be fun to load a revolver with one bullet, then walk up behind somebody, spin the chamber, point the gun at them, and pull the trigger once. Assume he does this when there's nobody else around to shoot him before he shoots you.
If the bullet doesn't fire, has he committed a crime? Is it OK to take away his gun by force?
I'd say yes (attempted murder) and hell yeah! Pacifists and Reparationists, it seems to me, would have no moral justification for stopping Spanky-- after all, if the bullet doesn't fire, there's no harm done.
I think there's a good argument to be made if you're a Retributionist that Spanky's behavior should be punished-- that it's OK to take his gun away from him, because it's pretty darn likely he's gonna kill you or somebody else soon.
Yeah, yeah, involuntary Russian Roulette is a contrived example (although lots of people are convicted of attempted murder). But there are plenty of other things that Spanky can do that puts your life at risk (experimenting with high explosives in the apartment downstairs from you, driving drunk).
And yeah, it's a slippery slope-- some people believe second-hand cigarette smoke is a risk to their lives. But I think it is possible to design a system of laws/government that both maximizes liberty and keeps us reasonably safe.
-
I suppose that one could call it a balancing act, although I'm not sure that that is a proper illustration because the goal isn't to balance government and liberty, but rather to have as little government as possible while maximizing liberty.
I suggest that Roads, a Justice System, a Navy, an Airforce and perhaps some type of system for regulating air travel would be in order. I advocate these soley because I cannot fathom a freemarket approach to these. However, simply because this undergraduate cannot think of one, doesn't mean that someone else won't.
However, even if the government were limited to those areas, the society, the political realm, and our economy would be better off. All in all, this is me saying, "we need as little government as possible."
-
This Roy Halliday is a bit off. I would lean towards the christian libertarian pacifist position. Now I just have to get that anger under control.
First, I have no idea who this Robert LeFarve is. I have never heard the name before and had to look it up. There are several individuals in this tradition such as Leo Tolstoi, David Henry Thoreau who articulated a pacifist-anarchist position.
Maybe this is something Roy didn't make clear but the position is that you do not respond to evil with evil. It isn't non-resistence but non-violent resistence to evil.
-
<-- Minarchist. :shock: And Who is John Galt? :P
-- Bridget
-
I'm the 7th kind. I am the individualist libertarian who doesn't see everything as fitting into 1 of 6 categories.
-
I'm the 7th kind. I am the individualist libertarian who doesn't see everything as fitting into 1 of 6 categories.
Ditto(Moreso this ammount of Philosophical debate is too much for me to understand, but also ditto)
-
"The limited-government libertarians have the same view of violence as the minarchists, except that the limited-government libertarians believe the government needs to provide more functions and has to forcefully interfere in the lives of peaceful people more than the minarchists believe is necessary."
I think there is a little bit of misrepresentation here. Limited government does not mean that the government has any right to forcefully interfere in any peaceful person's life. In a limited government society, you have the right to ignore the government, even to the point of not paying into it if you don't want to.
Also, not all limited government libertarians are the same. Unlike Mr. Manwich, I don't hold much with the government owning roads, any more than with the government owning parking lots.
-
C'mon driven, no one thinks the catagories are perfect. That is why we are discussing them. But don't create your own catagory.
The catagories are for the most part "good." nor do they leave anyone out.
-
I consider myself to fall into each category (except for pacivist) for different circumstances. Don't be a hater.
-
Lol......come on Driven.....even though you do not believe any one represents you, just choose one and pretend thats your beliefs....lol....
-
Lol......come on Driven.....even though you do not believe any one represents you, just choose one and pretend thats your beliefs....lol....
Okay. :D
-
Nice try to put words in my mouth.
I wasn't saying simply to conform to the selections. But rather, choose the one that BEST fits you, and then state your concerns.
-
I guess I just don't get it. Am I stupid?
-
I guess I just don't get it. Am I stupid?
Sometimes yes and sometimes no but isn't everyone. You know you set yourself up for that one.
You are saying none of these off the rack Libertarian styles are a best fit for you . Then why don't you post your beliefs taylor made as to what kind of Libertarian you are.
Here are some more off the rack suggestions mostly for entertainment purposes:
The FENG SHUI Libertarian - You attempt to achieve the most harmonious arrangement of your beliefs in freedom that benefit you the greatest and harming others the least.
The Wanderlust Libertarian - You sway from one Libertarian arch type to another dependent upon who you are physically closest to at any give time and how much influence they have over you.
The Contrarian Libertarian - You love to attend meetings and debate endlessly about insignificant points. When a vote comes up and everyone agrees you will still vote no just to be different and difficult.
The Little Orphan Annie Libertarian - You feel orphaned by the other political parties as a candidate and this is your last shot at Daddy Warbucks so you join the Libertarian party to run for political office.
-
I voted for minarchist. I say we hack it down to that, see how it goes, and then make modifications. That said, if the 'minimum' level of government that works well is zero, than so be it.
-
I voted for minarchist. I say we hack it down to that, see how it goes, and then make modifications.
You sound just like Harry Browne. I love Harry Browne!
-
Oh!
Now it makes more sense!
Im Contraian Libertarian with a touch of wanting daddy warbucks and his tout in my life
-
Self Defense Libertarian
-
"Crackpot conspiracy-theorist"
The woman who claimed government was controlled by a satanic, small group of people, and wanted to open borders to destroy the middle and lower classes... Yeah, absolutely a crackpot. Hilarious though. :lol:
-
Yeah, I heard that caller. I'll be the first to tell you that there is conspiracy and corruption in the federal government just as there was in the Roman Republic and just as there has been since the birth of this country.
But good grief...her theory about open boarders destorying the middle class as a satantic plot is totally unsupported and isn't even a viable position to take because open boarders doesn't destroy anyone or anything.
-
I don't see the need to decide for any of these options, only the direction is important. If a country starts a process to become a libertarian state, the first obvious step is the small-government, followed by the minarchy, then the free market variants and so on. At some point, people may find out that they can not go the next step because it would not work. But today, for us, the answer to the question is not really relevant and would be speculation anyway.
-
I'm with the, "I'm the 7th kind. I am the individualist libertarian who doesn't see everything as fitting into 1 of 6 categories." also.
I know that I can cross-off Pacifists and the other extreme Limited-Government Libertarians and most Minarchists views. I don't like the vigilantism either. I take the stance that you should only stop a crime not inflict the punishment. The punishment is the responsibility of the DROs. I guess that would aline me most with the Self-Defense Libertarians.
-
I almost said Self-Defense, but I went with Reparationist.
-
Sometimes yes and sometimes no but isn't everyone. You know you set yourself up for that one.
You are saying none of these off the rack Libertarian styles are a best fit for you . Then why don't you post your beliefs taylor made as to what kind of Libertarian you are.
Here are some more off the rack suggestions mostly for entertainment purposes:
The FENG SHUI Libertarian - You attempt to achieve the most harmonious arrangement of your beliefs in freedom that benefit you the greatest and harming others the least.
The Wanderlust Libertarian - You sway from one Libertarian arch type to another dependent upon who you are physically closest to at any give time and how much influence they have over you.
The Contrarian Libertarian - You love to attend meetings and debate endlessly about insignificant points. When a vote comes up and everyone agrees you will still vote no just to be different and difficult.
The Little Orphan Annie Libertarian - You feel orphaned by the other political parties as a candidate and this is your last shot at Daddy Warbucks so you join the Libertarian party to run for political office.
About the best break down I've seen. :lol:
On a good day, I'm Feng Shui. But when I'm in a bad mood, I just want to let it all fall apart, then rebuild everything later from the ground up.
-
I chose minarchist, but I'm a little of everything.
-
This is similar in essence to the "Worlds Smallest Political Quiz" - only it focuses on one quadrant. There's another dimension though - having to do with property rights such as what is property and what does ownership entail?
I bring this up mostly because of the Georgists/Geolibertarians - bless their souls - who have helped me understand my own positions on these matters better.
Some examples:
1. What do you consider property:
a) Your Body
b) The fruits of your labors
c) Land / other natural (at one point unowned) resources
d) Intellectual property
2. What is ownership?
a) control use of the property
b) benefit from the property (examples: mining rights and rent)
c) transfer or sell the property
d) exclude others from the property.
and which kinds of property can you exercise which types or ownership rights?
thoughts?
-
geo-mutualist...freemarket anti-capitalist.
What's a free market anti-capitalist?
-
geo-mutualist...freemarket anti-capitalist.
What's a free market anti-capitalist?
http://www.mutualist.org/
-
http://www.mutualist.org/
One of the articles on that website is "AUSTRIAN AND MARXIST THEORIES OF MONOPOLY-CAPITAL: A Mutualist Synthesis". If it wasn't so insanely long (27,509 words plus a few hundred citations), I might read it to see how in the world you guys deluded yourselves into thinking Austrian economics and Marxism can ever be combined.
-
Yeah... I read the article there, and it's pretty crappy. (BTW, my first post here)
Our ultimate vision is of a society in which the economy is organized around free market exchange between producers, and production is carried out mainly by self-employed artisans and farmers, small producers' cooperatives, worker-controlled large enterprises, and consumers' cooperatives. To the extent that wage labor still exists (which is likely, if we do not coercively suppress it), the removal of statist privileges will result in the worker's natural wage, as Benjamin Tucker put it, being his full product.
These guys want to enforce smaller companies, and how would you do that in a free society? Government restricting bigger companies! That's crap. Or you might have some laws that encourage small businesses unfairly against larger businesses.
Freemarket anti-capitalist 'mutualist' is bozo.
-
Yeah... I read the article there, and it's pretty crappy. (BTW, my first post here)
Our ultimate vision is of a society in which the economy is organized around free market exchange between producers, and production is carried out mainly by self-employed artisans and farmers, small producers' cooperatives, worker-controlled large enterprises, and consumers' cooperatives. To the extent that wage labor still exists (which is likely, if we do not coercively suppress it), the removal of statist privileges will result in the worker's natural wage, as Benjamin Tucker put it, being his full product.
These guys want to enforce smaller companies, and how would you do that in a free society? Government restricting bigger companies! That's crap. Or you might have some laws that encourage small businesses unfairly against larger businesses.
Freemarket anti-capitalist 'mutualist' is bozo.
state privileges like limited liability allow companies to grow way beyond what is natural...
thus the costs for goods sold by corporations don't include the risks that are being assumed by society.
also, other negative externalities reward corporations by making the costs paid for products cheaper.
-
state privileges like limited liability allow companies to grow way beyond what is natural...
thus the costs for goods sold by corporations don't include the risks that are being assumed by society.
also, other negative externalities reward corporations by making the costs paid for products cheaper.
Most libertarians would agree with you that state-supported corporations need to be done away with. However, in a free market some sort of business liability insurance would arise that would offer businesses many of the same benefits they get from incorporating, only on a voluntary basis. Given that, there is no reason to believe businesses would be any smaller than they are today. They may even be larger than they are today, as a side effect of replacing government regulation with private solutions.
I don't think that's what the mutualists are after, though - as Marxists in sheep's clothing, they hold on to that silly little notion that one person making a profit harms other people. Businesses make profits; ones that make lots of profits tend to grow, and therefore big businesses are evil.
-
http://www.mutualist.org/
One of the articles on that website is "AUSTRIAN AND MARXIST THEORIES OF MONOPOLY-CAPITAL: A Mutualist Synthesis". If it wasn't so insanely long (27,509 words plus a few hundred citations), I might read it to see how in the world you guys deluded yourselves into thinking Austrian economics and Marxism can ever be combined.
most articles on the site are actually part of a book that he sells called "Studies in Mutualist Political Economy"
-
state privileges like limited liability allow companies to grow way beyond what is natural...
thus the costs for goods sold by corporations don't include the risks that are being assumed by society.
also, other negative externalities reward corporations by making the costs paid for products cheaper.
Most libertarians would agree with you that state-supported corporations need to be done away with. However, in a free market some sort of business liability insurance would arise that would offer businesses many of the same benefits they get from incorporating, only on a voluntary basis. Given that, there is no reason to believe businesses would be any smaller than they are today. They may even be larger than they are today, as a side effect of replacing government regulation with private solutions.
I don't think that's what the mutualists are after, though - as Marxists in sheep's clothing, they hold on to that silly little notion that one person making a profit harms other people. Businesses make profits; ones that make lots of profits tend to grow, and therefore big businesses are evil.
business liability insurance would have to be purchased on the open market and therefore the price of their goods would be MORE expensive than the smaller firm that is producing locally.
-
And Ben Tucker keeps preaching his idealogy without falsification. Try Karl Popper first, Benny, before posting again. You're starting to sound like a religious nut.
-- Bridget
-
Free-Market Retributionist would best describe me
-
This really is an interesting discussion. I'm glad to see that the different sub-catagories of the term Libertarian are being defined.
The term libertarian is a broad one, but still over applied to many politicians in office.
It is important to have well defined terms, and this is a good step in that direction.
-
Minarchist.
-
Minarchist.
Same.
-
I hit minarchist by mistake, and won't let me change my vote. It should have been Limited Government Libertarian..
Hardy
-
Why does one need to be a Libertarian?
What works for you may not work for somrone else.
So what makes you think your way is so much better?
I don't think there is anything wrong with being just yourself
I.E.-This Space Not For Rent, Lease or Acquisition.
-
Yeah, there's nothing wrong with being yourself. What's wrong is trying to use the government to force things onto other people. And that's what nearly everyone, except for libertarians and anarchists, does.
Just in the other thread you were supporting the government making it harder for people to buy cold medicine. Hello? If I have a cold, I want a way to get better or feel better!
-
So what makes you think your way is so much better?
Well, to answer your question:
What works for you may not work for somrone else.
-
Minarchist, except for the nonsense about government initiating force against competition.
I'm very concerned about DROs and reputation agencies that have been suggested by anarchists. I want a society that gives me more freedom (including privacy and anonymity when needed), not less.
All libertarians agree in reducing the size of government, but instead of 6 types, there are >10 million individuals. Each has different areas where they are hesitant to go straight from huge government to no government, except for the most extreme anarchists. So there is a transition, and I suggest this transition to less government is tested on a competitive basis. Eliminate a government function in different ways and allow the marketplace to develop solutions. I think the best "first round" of this transition is devolving federal functions to the states. Some states will have just as much regulation and power, but some (NH!) should devolve even further, to the county, community, and hopefully, the individual. I suspect the freest states will have the best results, but there is concern, even from libertarians, that the populace has been so dumbed down they are not ready for 100% responsibility. A competitive system of reducing government allows the best ways of the devolution to flourish.
I may end up being an anarchist, but I dont think it will happen to the benefit of society until all of us raised as slaves to the state die off, and new generations of our educated, responsible grandchildren take personal charge.
-
I think the best "first round" of this transition is devolving federal functions to the states. Some states will have just as much regulation and power, but some (NH!) should devolve even further, to the county, community, and hopefully, the individual.
this is exactly what the Second Vermont Republic is proposing as described in the book "The Vermont Papers"
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0930031318/104-7466541-7699965?v=glance&n=283155
for our recent vermont independence party (jan. 14th) we had the authors of the book come and speak while it was filmed by a TV crew from Quebec.
the politics are non-partisan league and the economics are mutualist, distributist/agrarian, georgist, bio-regionalist.
Benjamin Tucker
board member, Second Vermont Republic
-
I don't like all these labels.
I prefer to just say that I want liberty for all.
If anyone needs more clarification then I can have a conversation about it.
-
Labels allow for "more clarification" without a conversation.
Of course, labels aren't prefect. But they are invaluable to language.
This whole issue of Ideologies can be traced back to the post-french revolution/post napoleon era. Socialism, Nationalism, 19th Century Conservatism, and 19th Century Liberalism. One might also throw romanticism in there.
It's usually not very hard to give ideologies definitions because, by their political nature, they have goals and aims and this aids in defining them. However, when we dive into them as we are Libertarianism, we get this problem because the aims are often the same, but the details (some details larger than others) differ. Someone always feels left out and what not. It is a good thing that we have a language that is flexible and changable.
-
I basically just get annoyed at figuring out what category I'm in.
What can I say?
I have OCD or something.
-
Free Market Reparationist
-
I basically just get annoyed at figuring out what category I'm in.
What can I say?
I have OCD or something.
Heh, I think there are basically two categories. You can either be an anarchist or a statist. Anything inbetween is indecisive.
-
Indivisualist or Collectivist would work as well I guess.
-
Heh, I think there are basically two categories. You can either be an anarchist or a statist. Anything inbetween is indecisive.
I think this may be a little off. I would agree with Puke's assesment. Collectivist or Individualist would be better terminology.
I think I'm going to devise my own political specturm one day soon here.
-
Anarcho-capitalist. Sweet, sweet liberty.
-
I chose Self-Defense Libertarian, given the choices, and not knowing exactly what 'other' choice I would pick.
Heh, I think there are basically two categories. You can either be an anarchist or a statist. Anything inbetween is indecisive.
This is a valid argument in the light of questioning the existence of rights. If rights do exist, some form of state would be assumed, as would conceptualizing that people would, by default, be in agreement with those rights. If a Libertarian government wished to maintain a 'naturalist' governing structure, then why not dissolve into an anarcho-capitalist state, since the two would be very close to the same? One important difference would be in recognizing a synthesized version of natural law (statist), versus not requiring such a prerequisite (anarchist).
I don't find myself siding with Anarchism or Anarcho-Capitalism, as well meaning an ideal it is. Within either framework, mini governments, which would be perceived as private entities, could come into power: The Libertarian side of things would embrace such systems, hopefully up to and before they committed to acts of force (depending on crime/reparations law nuances) or attempted to overthrow the current system forcefully, while the anarchist philosophy would be inclined to (??) reject to such conglomeration as it would institute a 'state' of chaos. I just find Libertarianism to be more likely to succeed.
Ability being infinitely diverse: You may not have the ability to exercise all of your rights, but you may have the ability to infringe on the rights of others. Enforcing rights is a problem. Although I may be giving some lip service to the Anarcho-Capitalists, I find that there's always some level of recognition of the 'state' of the environment, whether a government is present or not, through the recognition of contract.
The root matter is individual sovereignty. I like the idea of a system that recognizes the individual in terms of defense against slavery, and ultimately coercion (even though such a system is not perfect and I don't totally agree with it philosophically, it appears to be a best-fit). For all other 'rights', it's simply a matter of 'fighting' for your rights, or engaging in the 'right', or should I say ability (?) to contract, which I think the Anarcho-Capitalists would be more inclined to side with. Private groups would be free to compete so the government not be the first group to address all problems.
Because Ian's currently in the Anarcho-Capitalism camp, Manwich is looking much more credible lately. :P
-
Within either framework, mini governments, which would be perceived as private entities, could come into power: The Libertarian side of things would embrace such systems, hopefully up to and before they committed to acts of force (depending on crime/reparations law nuances) or attempted to overthrow the current system forcefully, while the anarchist philosophy would be inclined to (??) reject to such conglomeration as it would institute a 'state' of chaos. I just find Libertarianism to be more likely to succeed.
I don't see Anarchism as being against organization. In my mind Anarchism is simply against legitimizing of force. If you wanted to form a gated community, commune, mini government inside an anarcho-capitalist society there would be absolutely no problem there as long as each of the members enter into your contract voluntarily and they can leave even if it breaks the contract (because an individual cannot contract themselves into slavery). Basically the only thing the contract could do is dictate how they behave in your little society and if they don't abide by the contract you can kick them out, but you cannot force them to stay using the contract (at least in theory).
I think in practice though, there would be much looser contracts. For example a bunch of neighbors in a wide area may contract together to defend the area in case of invaders or whatever. There are many different angles to this and each community can adapt the system to their culture and preferred way of doing things.
Like minded individuals would like congregate in areas where things are done their way.
The problem I see today is that we have a lot of the same. So when you complain and someone says "Why don't you go somewhere else?" there really isn't anywhere else to go. If all of North America was Anarchist there would suddenly be a lot of very diverse societies because there is no longer a conformist central government molding people through the public school system.
Ability being infinitely diverse: You may not have the ability to exercise all of your rights, but you may have the ability to infringe on the rights of others. Enforcing rights is a problem. Although I may be giving some lip service to the Anarcho-Capitalists, I find that there's always some level of recognition of the 'state' of the environment, whether a government is present or not, through the recognition of contract.
Again, you seem to be thinking of Anarchy as the mean stream definition which leads to chaos and what not. When in fact there is probably more order in an Anarchist society than in our current society, for one simple reason: In Anarchy you are required to be more responsible and cautious in life, while in statism you can rely on government to get you out of trouble if you screw up by forcing banks to forgive your debts and giving you money if you loose your job, etc.
The root matter is individual sovereignty. I like the idea of a system that recognizes the individual in terms of defense against slavery, and ultimately coercion (even though such a system is not perfect and I don't totally agree with it philosophically, it appears to be a best-fit). For all other 'rights', it's simply a matter of 'fighting' for your rights, or engaging in the 'right', or should I say ability (?) to contract, which I think the Anarcho-Capitalists would be more inclined to side with. Private groups would be free to compete so the government not be the first group to address all problems.
Government protects you from slavery by enslaving you itself. You should have realized this by now. You work so that you can pay your taxes, if you stop working men with guns will come and take your property because you couldn't pay the property taxes. That is slavery.
I recommend that you read this:
http://www.mises.org/story/1970 The Nature of Man and His Government
http://www.mises.org/story/1987 Society Needs No Managers
Examples of Anarcho-Capitalist societies
http://www.mises.org/story/1121 Medieval Iceland and the Absence of Government
http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig3/long1.html Privatization, Viking Style: Model or Misfortune?
http://www.daviddfriedman.com/Academic/Iceland/Iceland.html Private Creation and Enforcement of Law: A Historical Case
http://www.mises.org/rothbard/newliberty11.asp The Public Sector, III: Police, Law, and the Courts
-
The problem I see today is that we have a lot of the same. So when you complain and someone says "Why don't you go somewhere else?" there really isn't anywhere else to go. If all of North America was Anarchist there would suddenly be a lot of very diverse societies because there is no longer a conformist central government molding people through the public school system.
the Second Vermont Republic is proposing to devolve all state power back to the face to face, human scale direct democracy within a deliberative body (town meeting) then confederate up to shire "ward" republics (2-3 contiguous towns) based on bio-regions where the shires would have legislators (reeves) that would represent no more than 300-500 people with immediate rights of recall. (see "The Vermont Papers")
http://www.chelseagreen.com/2006/items/vermontpapers
so as an individual you could act as your own citizen legislator at annual town meeting and then actually KNOW and INTERACT with your elected reeves...
if you didn't like the way things were running in the shire you live in - move to one of the other 40 shires proposed for Vermont.
-
I don't see Anarchism as being against organization. In my mind Anarchism is simply against legitimizing of force. If you wanted to form a gated community, commune, mini government inside an anarcho-capitalist society there would be absolutely no problem there as long as each of the members enter into your contract voluntarily and they can leave even if it breaks the contract (because an individual cannot contract themselves into slavery). Basically the only thing the contract could do is dictate how they behave in your little society and if they don't abide by the contract you can kick them out, but you cannot force them to stay using the contract (at least in theory).
I tend to get confused with matters of anarchism as it applies to claim. It is nice to know you believe Anarchy can work by resisting the legitimizing of force, though I don't see everyone following along with that sentiment in the application of an Anarchic society. I agree with some of what you are saying though. Is there a difference between the legitimizing of force versus force applied itself? As they say, might makes right...
Again, you seem to be thinking of Anarchy as the mean stream definition which leads to chaos and what not. When in fact there is probably more order in an Anarchist society than in our current society, for one simple reason: In Anarchy you are required to be more responsible and cautious in life, while in statism you can rely on government to get you out of trouble if you screw up by forcing banks to forgive your debts and giving you money if you loose your job, etc.
Yes... I agree with the ideal of anarchism but it's different in practice. Order or perhaps efficiency in an Anarchy may be better than current society since there is no need to adhere to a relatively static system of law and governing which brings about economic/moral/etc deficits with those who take advantage of the power positions created through the bureaucracy. Hard pressed to disagree with what you are saying here... I don't see a reason why a government needs to bail people out for their mistakes, and would rather the government be funded voluntarily. That said, the question becomes 'what do we really need government for anyways?'. I certainly won't say roads, judges, police, or a postal service... while I can see private solutions for some of these, I'd say certain global tolerance threshold issues (WMDs, maybe some pollution issues) or a complementary national defense might be something I would consider, given the current state of the world and the likelihood of Libertarianism or Anarchism's fruition.
Government protects you from slavery by enslaving you itself. You should have realized this by now. You work so that you can pay your taxes, if you stop working men with guns will come and take your property because you couldn't pay the property taxes. That is slavery.
No doubt. The majority of people are captive to trade, so debting is an unavoidable state for some in the ebb and flow of the economy, but on top of that we have an increasing band of thugs taking a slice for themselves and playing on this ebb and flow.
Thanks for the reading material. Gone through some of it.
-
I certainly won't say roads, judges, police, or a postal service... while I can see private solutions for some of these, I'd say certain global tolerance threshold issues (WMDs, maybe some pollution issues) or a complementary national defense might be something I would consider, given the current state of the world and the likelihood of Libertarianism or Anarchism's fruition.
More reading material...
DEFENSE SERVICES ON THE FREE MARKET (http://www.mises.org/rothbard/mes/chap13.asp) - one chapter from Rothbards book Man, Economy & State
The Myth of National Defense (http://www.mises.org/story/1356) - short discussion of the actual book The Myth of National Defense (http://www.mises.org/store/product1.aspx?Product_ID=171), you can also download the entire book in PDF fromat here (http://www.mises.org/etexts/defensemyth.pdf).
The National Defense Myth (http://www.lewrockwell.com/rockwell/myth-nationaldefense.html) - another article about the same book
Privateering and National Defense: Naval Warfare for Private Profit (http://www.mises.org/journals/scholar/Sechrest6.PDF) PDF
-
Haha, you know that was my weakest arguement! :lol:
My definition of national defense would be something akin to rent-a-tank. There would be military equipment and vehicles stored on a lot, much like the National Guard, but given to individuals or militia during times of war or emergency with rated experience/simulation hours as recognized by whichever private organizations were keeping track.
I understand that the decentralization of government into an Anarchy makes for a less appealing target to foreign and domestic agressors, and that the private sector could take over the military equipment aspect. In the case of large scale invasions, I think the government is something that should be fallen back upon, but it wouldn't look anything like the one we have today. Again, I think it should be voluntarily funded. I agree with you, but I'm falling short of letting go of the government body as the superstructure recognizing national territory. :P
-
Self Defense Libertarian, although I also want them out of my life / business and cut down to almost nothing.
-
Easily a limited government libertarian. The government should hold the role of enforcing laws based on widely agreed-upon general principles and dealing with national matters such as trade, diplomatic relations and mantaining the military. States and cities would be able to regulate and impose laws based on issues that fall out of the bounds of national law. This should be done using public courts with a panel of judges locally elected with a proportional representation system as well as public police agencies wherein local citizens are shareholders. There should be a strong military; one that can project force and put the Chavezes and Ahmadinejads of the world in their place or otherwise play an interventionist role.
-
I'm a nacho cheese flavored libertarian.
Mmm...nachos.
-
:idea:
-
Easily a limited government libertarian. The government should hold the role of enforcing laws based on widely agreed-upon general principles and dealing with national matters such as trade, diplomatic relations and mantaining the military.
You mean like two wolves and a sheep agreeing on what to have for dinner?
-
You mean like two wolves and a sheep agreeing on what to have for dinner?
Or a loose framework for a cohesive nation-state that ensures human rights, liberty, free markets and free trade.
-
You mean like two wolves and a sheep agreeing on what to have for dinner?
Or a loose framework for a cohesive nation-state that ensures human rights, liberty, free markets and free trade.
Rights require some serious consideration on how they are supported/enforced, which is the downside to the state. Rights are not magical: If the rights of group A come from the Rights of group B, then group B is likely not going to appreciate said Rights.
We supposedly wouldn't need outlined rights in a state situation if everyone got along... and then comes Anarchy/Anarcho-Capitalism suggesting a non-coersive way of life devoid of any rights. In such a system, you would be free to enter into any of the myriad of protection services providing what we would comparably sight as 'Rights', though those granting the rights would recognize the person who was paying for them on the individual level, which is one of the stronger arguements for Anarcho-Capitalism.
However 'Natural Law' is something to be interpreted, and I find that this is a notable flaw in the Anarcho-Capitalist philosophy as eukreign has presented it. That doesn't mean a small Libertarian Government is going to do any better to resolve the matter, as it often ends up coming down to a democratic/dictatorial decree of what human rights shall be set forth, but if you're intent on recognizing any boundaries, then I favor Libertarianism over Anarchy.
As they say, when people fear the government, it's tyrrany. While a government which the people do not fear may still be the source of injustices via democratic procedure, I find that the arguements for Anarcho-Capitalism I have heard so far cling to presumptuously humanist doctrine (yet I find it hard to argue with this). That said, tyrrany need not come from a government body, and a well endearerd Anarchic environment can do just as good as a well endeared Libertarianism. But conversely, both are easily capable of injustice so long as people cling to principles (and I hope people cling fast).
-
That said, tyrrany need not come from a government body, and a well endearerd Anarchic environment can do just as good as a well endeared Libertarianism.
How can it be tyrannical if at any point you can say "screw you guys, I'm going home"?
If the people are being "oppressed" in an anarcho-capitalist society, they will simply choose not to associate with their "oppressors". The only way you can have oppression is if someone is forcibly preventing you from removing yourself from that oppression. The second that happens, you've left the realm of anarchy and now have a government.
-
How can it be tyrannical if at any point you can say "screw you guys, I'm going home"?
If the people are being "oppressed" in an anarcho-capitalist society, they will simply choose not to associate with their "oppressors". The only way you can have oppression is if someone is forcibly preventing you from removing yourself from that oppression. The second that happens, you've left the realm of anarchy and now have a government.
Because you might not be able to 'go home'.
The freedom for a person to move goes hand in hand with the freedom for the jerks and opressive people to move right along with them until it no longer becomes 'worth it' to them. Given this, I'm sure there might be a few people sadistic enough to choose to oppress their neighbors, in both subtle and apparent ways, even to the point of slavery. That's not to say what we have now doesn't bite. It does, alot, and there are still issues with a small Libertarian type of government that could remain.
In the proceedings of Anarchy, there's no guarantee that you will be free since not everyone will conform to principles of anarchy. Mini-governments add structure to those who seek them, and are acceptable to Anarchists so long as those who engage in them are all consenting. But what of crime and justice where one seeks protection services from another, and a third party is harmed through the actions of enforcing the agreement between the first two individuals because that third party attempted to apply force? it coincides with what is 'liberal', in which there is freedom for all to apply force, despite the consequences.
Of course it's no longer Anarchy when someone chooses to live on a foundation of oppression and force, but if that's the case, then you can simply say that Anarchy works, so long as you're not pointing out the cases in which circumstances directly related, but never affirmed as 'failures', are not working in its favor. Anarchy is an adorable concept that continues to remain true, but it disassociates itself from the very real and very negative aspects of life that are present in virtually all situations. There will always be death and some measure of 'cost-of-living' that will place strain on people and not everyone will concede to not apply force.
I would concede that we'll all be better off if either Anarcho-Capitalism or Libertarianism within a small government structure come into being. It's always been a fault to let others decide for us and assume power. But please help me understand the need for protection services in an Anarchy, and how it is that everyone is to recognize and agree to the right to property without using some measure of force to make such a claim?
-
.
It doesn't matter which kind of Lazy-tarian you are. They all get nothing done.
-
Anarcho-Capitalist. Bet y'all are surprised at that. 8)
-
Rights require some serious consideration on how they are supported/enforced, which is the downside to the state. Rights are not magical: If the rights of group A come from the Rights of group B, then group B is likely not going to appreciate said Rights.
those granting the rights would recognize the person who was paying for them on the individual level, which is one of the stronger arguements for Anarcho-Capitalism.
These two arguments are contradictory. Democratic governments have the same incentives to recognize rights as these organizations would.
-
.
It doesn't matter which kind of Lazy-tarian you are. They all get nothing done.
So have you done anything other than blah blah blah about this and that? Think about it you could be 100% correct in everyone of your beliefs and you have spread the news, well now what? What are you doing about anything other than posting to the internet? Is it your plan to wear the Guy Fawks mask? Or are you going to curl up in a bunker somewhere waiting for the end of civilization?
-
Democratic governments have the same incentives to recognize rights as these organizations would.
How did you reach the conclusion that theft is the same as trade?
-
lolbertarians
-
How did you reach the conclusion that theft is the same as trade?
Read, comprehend, then post.
Feel free to formulate another reply when you actually understand the conversation you are entering into.
-
I do understand the conversation. Again, how did you reach the conclusion that theft is the same as trade?
-
What's MobileDigit mean, anyway. Are you texting from a cell?
-
I mean that governments do not have the same incentives to recognize rights that business does.
-
I mean that governments do not have the same incentives to recognize rights that business does.
I disagree. Votes are to a politician as money is to a businessman.
-
I mean that governments do not have the same incentives to recognize rights that business does.
I disagree. Votes are to a politician as money is to a businessman.
If 90% of the population votes to elect a politician who will infringe the rights of the other 10%, there's not much that 10% can do (working within the system, at least) to change it.
If 90% of the population chooses Acme Protection Agency, that has no effect whatsoever on the other 10% who choose to contract with someone else, or no one at all.
-
If 90% of the population votes to elect a politician who will infringe the rights of the other 10%, there's not much that 10% can do (working within the system, at least) to change it.
History says otherwise.
In addition, laws limit how power can be used.
If 90% of the population chooses Acme Protection Agency, that has no effect whatsoever on the other 10% who choose to contract with someone else, or no one at all.
Sure it does. If those 10% have a "dispute" with the 90%, they will have to deal with Acme Protection Agency. What happens if they have discriminatory policies towards that 10%, especially those that don't have an agency behind them?
-
If 90% of the population votes to elect a politician who will infringe the rights of the other 10%, there's not much that 10% can do (working within the system, at least) to change it.
History says otherwise.
In addition, laws limit how power can be used.
Because the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, States' rights, and laws about Congress officially declaring a war before fighting it are doing a wonderful job of limiting Federal power.
If 90% of the population chooses Acme Protection Agency, that has no effect whatsoever on the other 10% who choose to contract with someone else, or no one at all.
Sure it does. If those 10% have a "dispute" with the 90%, they will have to deal with Acme Protection Agency. What happens if they have discriminatory policies towards that 10%, especially those that don't have an agency behind them?
Yes, if 100 people who all happen to use the minority agency get in a dispute with 100 people who all happen to use the Acme Agency, chances are that Acme's policies etc. will be used primarily.
Also, if such a vast majority of the population were with one Agency, it must do business damn well. If the small one were much better, it would have more customers. Maybe the smaller agency specializes, say, in being a Protection Agency for people with handicaps.
That said, with Protection Agencies, you have a choice. The agency does not come to your house, impose its will upon you,and make you pay for its services "for your own good." That, I believe, is the heart of the matter.
-
The agency does not come to your house, impose its will upon you,and make you pay for its services "for your own good." That, I believe, is the heart of the matter.
that is because you (like many others here) are under the false impression that beyond a certain point (Locke's proviso) force is NOT inherent in dominion over a specific territory even in the absence of any government.
-
Because the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, States' rights, and laws about Congress officially declaring a war before fighting it are doing a wonderful job of limiting Federal power.
Ideally, you'd want absolute limits on government but not this wishy-washy "the constitution is a living document" interpretist nonsense that'd laughed out of a Sunday school if you tried it. But let's not forget the major reason why this happens: It's aided and abetted by people who want it to.
The "Congress officially declaring a war" part is silly though as it's hardly such a cut and dry issue. In fact, it's a pretty good argument towards my point.
That said, with Protection Agencies, you have a choice. The agency does not come to your house, impose its will upon you,and make you pay for its services "for your own good." That, I believe, is the heart of the matter.
I'm failing to see the dfference between having a "minority" agency and a minority party in government.
that is because you (like many others here) are under the false impression that beyond a certain point (Locke's proviso) force is NOT inherent in dominion over a specific territory even in the absence of any government.
Curses! We've been found out! Quick, to the Bourgeoismobile!
-
Ideally, you'd want absolute limits on government but not this wishy-washy "the constitution is a living document" interpretist nonsense that'd laughed out of a Sunday school if you tried it. But let's not forget the major reason why this happens: It's aided and abetted by people who want it to.
The "Congress officially declaring a war" part is silly though as it's hardly such a cut and dry issue. In fact, it's a pretty good argument towards my point.
How do you intend to enforce these absolute limits on government? They can only be enforced by the people. Remember, the price of liberty is eternal vigilance.
In the scenario of 90% of the people wanting to tyrannize the other 10%, all the absolute limits on government you want won't stop the politicans from throwing the limits right out the window, with the consent of the majority of their constituents.
-
How do you intend to enforce these absolute limits on government? They can only be enforced by the people. Remember, the price of liberty is eternal vigilance.
Seeing as the burden ultimately lies on the people, there is a limit (ha ha) to what you can do. I would say what's needed is a constitution that is explicitly worded agianst re-interpretation and judicial activism, and demands a literal plain text reading. Include a dictionary-like addendum defining all the terms used for legal purposes. The aim would be create a document that any citizen could read, take to court with them and win. If you keep it simple, then vigliance becomes a whole lot easier.
In the scenario of 90% of the people wanting to tyrannize the other 10%, all the absolute limits on government you want won't stop the politicans from throwing the limits right out the window, with the consent of the majority of their constituents.
The rule of law does. If you get past that point, then it doesn't matter whether you have a government or not.
-
I would say what's needed is a constitution that is explicitly worded agianst re-interpretation and judicial activism, and demands a literal plain text reading. Include a dictionary-like addendum defining all the terms used for legal purposes. The aim would be create a document that any citizen could read, take to court with them and win. If you keep it simple, then vigliance becomes a whole lot easier.
You're asking for something to be both simple and comprehensive at the same time. I can't even rent an apartment without signing 50 pages of small print. I say keep it simple and apply more vigilance. And a little hot sauce.
-
You're asking for something to be both simple and comprehensive at the same time. I can't even rent an apartment without signing 50 pages of small print. I say keep it simple and apply more vigilance. And a little hot sauce.
A simple preamble ought to deal swifty with issues of interpretation and the addendum would certainly be optional, my reason for including it is to preserve the meaning and intent of the document in the future. Ideally, you'd want to work to make the document so culturally signifiicant that these precautioins wouldn't be necessary, at least for the time being.
It would be a be a matter of crafting a set of simple, fundamental principles that can be broadly applied. One for the private citizen and one for the government. I don't see it as an impossible task.
-
The question is raised, WHY HAVE A GOVERNMENT? :x
"I could make the government work, if only I was in power!"
-
"I could make the government work, if only I was in power!"
No you couldn't. Because I won't cooperate... unless I see a chance to off you and seize control.
Yes.... I'll apply for a job in your adminstration.... pastry chef. Arsenic - I mean Apricot - confectionary, sir?
-
Ah... crime and punishment... this has been my last major hurdle in the race from Republican to Anarchist... at this point, I guess I'm solidly over the line on the side of anarchy, because I think there's got to be a better system than having Government to mete out punishments on criminals. I kind of like the idea of voluntary contracts that form the ground rules for basic "legal" behavior, but I haven't solved the problem of those who would chose no contract at all.
I guess at this point I'd have to say I'm somewhat undecided in the range between Free-Market Retributionists and Self-Defense Libertarians, but leaning more toward the self-defense side (so that's how I am about to vote). This is definitely where I have the most work to do in fully defining my political beliefs. Anyone have any reading suggestions on books about crime and punishment from an anarchist/libertarian standpoint?
-
I'm a fan of Street Justice. Which is essentially what Free-Market Retributionist is. It's simple, doesnt involve the Government, and its for people who are willing to take a risk to dish out a little payback on whoever wronged him/her.
Whatever happened to good old fashioned Duels? Back then, People settled their disputes like MEN. They didn't cry to Mommy government to right their wrongs, they Handled their business & that was it. If you failed in your quest, well thats life.
-
I kind of like the idea of voluntary contracts that form the ground rules for basic "legal" behavior, but I haven't solved the problem of those who would chose no contract at all.
Manwich tried attacking the DRO idea over this concept in a show awhile back. He called them "rogues", and claimed the only reason someone would want to live like that is so they wouldn't be bound by any contracts, making it easier to engage in criminal activities. He then asked Ian, who was defending the DRO concept, what the DROs would do about that.
I sent in an e-mail that didn't make it on the air about it. My point was that if there's only a few of these "rogues", then it's a non-issue. Above a certain threshold number of rogues, DROs would include a clause in their contracts forbidding their customers from participating in commerce with rogues (though people wouldn't want to deal with rogues in the first place, as you would have no recourse if one cheated you).
Thus, rogues would only be able to deal with other rogues. But even rogues, when they're not being criminals, have to eat. This creates an undergound economy of rogues that trade with each other for the necessities of life. However, rogues don't like getting cheated any more than you or I do. So, they form their own DRO-like entities to protect their legitimate trades between each other. At some point, it will make business sense for the rogue's DRO to open itself up to the other DROs, and then the rogues aren't rogues anymore. If that ever happened in real life, which I think is pretty damn unlikely, it would be a solved problem.
-
This is similar in essence to the "Worlds Smallest Political Quiz" - only it focuses on one quadrant. There's another dimension though - having to do with property rights such as what is property and what does ownership entail?
I bring this up mostly because of the Georgists/Geolibertarians - bless their souls - who have helped me understand my own positions on these matters better.
Some examples:
1. What do you consider property:
a) Your Body
b) The fruits of your labors
c) Land / other natural (at one point unowned) resources
d) Intellectual property
2. What is ownership?
a) control use of the property
b) benefit from the property (examples: mining rights and rent)
c) transfer or sell the property
d) exclude others from the property.
and which kinds of property can you exercise which types or ownership rights?
thoughts?
You're right, the 6 categories are pretty much all dealing with the use of force, very similar to the horizontal scale "personal freedoms", of the WSPQ.
And property rights would be the "economic freedoms" vertical scale of the quiz.
Now all we need are some easily understood questions and we will have the World's smallest libertarian quiz.
-
Minarchist/Exilist. Violation of rights wherein adaquit reperations can not be paid Murder, Rape, Battery resulting in Permenent Loss of Mental or Bodily function punishment would be removal from society.
-
Crap, I can't remember which I voted for.
-
i am a limited goverment libretarian.
-
libretarian? Is that like a religious librarian or something? :-)
-
ahhh lol
-
Free market retributionist. I truly believe that in a Libertarian society there would be far less violent crime. It's hard to imagine a society where "victimless crimes" go unpunished, but there would be a far less opressive justice system either way. There still needs to be a way to deal with the violent sociopaths that threaten private property and threaten physical harm on others.
-
Minarchism as a temporary measure - let's cut one government program at a time (well, the really noxious ones can all go at once) until we can't agree on any more ways that the free market could take care of it. In other words, cut the government down to 1787 levels minus the postal service and see what happens from there.
-
Minarchism as a temporary measure - let's cut one government program at a time (well, the really noxious ones can all go at once) until we can't agree on any more ways that the free market could take care of it. In other words, cut the government down to 1787 levels minus the postal service and see what happens from there.
Since the postal service wasn't in existance then, I imagine you're willing to keep it? All the Constitution requires of the government is to build and maintain post roads. ;)
-
Of the categories posted, I am definitely a free-market retributionist, but that's a hell of a mouthful. Anarcho-capitalist is much more to the point.
Minarchist
Until it's proven to me to be otherwise this is the least intrusive, yet functional, system available.
How do you know anarcho-capitalism is not functional? How do you define functional?
I would say it is functional, but it seems to me it would closely resemble feudalism. Bastiat's "The Law" gives a good account why minanarchism or LGL is best suited for reality. The 'less violent' libertarian theories seem to me a bit utopian, if the history of humanity is any guide.
-
How do you know anarcho-capitalism is not functional? How do you define functional?
I would say it is functional, but it seems to me it would closely resemble feudalism. Bastiat's "The Law" gives a good account why minanarchism or LGL is best suited for reality. The 'less violent' libertarian theories seem to me a bit utopian, if the history of humanity is any guide.
Ach Laddie;
If ye be thinkin' that humanity tends toward violence,
then ye'd best create no state at all.
Criminals are always a minority, but the State can grow big enou' to eat a grrrreat deal of it's population.
Soviet Union, Maoist China, Pol Pot's Cambodia...
-
Criminals are always a minority, but the State can grow big enou' to eat a grrrreat deal of it's population.
Soviet Union, Maoist China, Pol Pot's Cambodia...
I don't disagree with ya! Hence the 'limited' part of 'LGL' and the 'min' part of 'minanarchist'!
-
Criminals are always a minority, but the State can grow big enou' to eat a grrrreat deal of it's population.
Soviet Union, Maoist China, Pol Pot's Cambodia...
I don't disagree with ya! Hence the 'limited' part of 'LGL' and the 'min' part of 'minanarchist'!
Just by existing, the state violates rights, no matter how "limited" it is. How can it then claim to protect rights?
-
Just by existing, the state violates rights, no matter how "limited" it is. How can it then claim to protect rights?
Have you read "The Law" by Bastiat?
-
Just by existing, the state violates rights, no matter how "limited" it is. How can it then claim to protect rights?
How so? I'd say New Hampshire, if you view it as a separate entity, is doing a very good job of protecting (and growing those protections) rights.
I'd say that at least for a while, we had statesmen Presidents who tried, in their way, to protect rights.
-
Just by existing, the state violates rights, no matter how "limited" it is. How can it then claim to protect rights?
How so?
Taxation.
-
The state cannot raise a military or pay people to be ambassadors to foreign nations without taxation.
Can you afford a house in England that you won't need after your stint as ambassador is up? can you afford it anyways? Can a well-armed militia be raised to take part in WWI? WWII? Whatever the causes of those wars, us being in them was a non-choice. Mexico was in cahoots with Nazi Germany and the Japs decided attacking us first was the best way to try and stop our trade embargo with them (among other reasons, IIRC).
As long as it is clear and well defined what the government can and cannot tax for - the building and maintaining of post roads and roads to connect the bases, the raising of a well-armed and trained army, etc. - and the American people are willing to FIGHT to keep it that way, it shouldn't be seen as a violation of rights. These are absolutely necessary to the functions of a government, and you cannot deal with other governments on equal footing without ambassadors and statesmen to deal with them. You cannot deal with them on equal footing without a standing army. We would have lost WWI and WWII without our military-industrial complex. Yes, I want Constitutionally limited taxes, not because I like having parts of my check taken away, but because I like being well defended in my homeland.
-
The state cannot raise a military or pay people to be ambassadors to foreign nations without taxation.
The state cannot exist without taxation.
Can you afford a house in England that you won't need after your stint as ambassador is up? can you afford it anyways?
Ambassadors are needed for governments, and governments are not needed.
Can a well-armed militia be raised to take part in WWI? WWII?
If it can't, is it all right to steal money to do so? What makes you think that?
As long as it is clear and well defined what the government can and cannot tax for - the building and maintaining of post roads and roads to connect the bases, the raising of a well-armed and trained army, etc. - and the American people are willing to FIGHT to keep it that way, it shouldn't be seen as a violation of rights.
Theft is always a violation of rights, not matter what the thief does with the property, or whether a constitution said it was ok.
These are absolutely necessary to the functions of a government, and you cannot deal with other governments on equal footing without ambassadors and statesmen to deal with them.
Businesses have no trouble dealing with other businesses without using violence.
You cannot deal with them on equal footing without a standing army.
So government suddenly becomes efficient when it's fighting a war? Nonsense.
We would have lost WWI and WWII without our military-industrial complex.
We wouldn't have been in either if it wasn't for the military-industrial complex.
Yes, I want Constitutionally limited taxes, not because I like having parts of my check taken away, but because I like being well defended in my homeland.
Fine. You can give your money to whomever you like - just don't force me to as well!
-
MobileD,
Are humans equipped to live in peace without some kind of governance? I'm with you on the principles, but it seems reality and history say certain humans will always seek to deprive others of property, liberty or life, if it benefits them. They don't need a state to do it and it is this state of man which prompts the 'neccessary evil' of government.
Bastiat (whom I've referred above), noted in The Law:If every person has the right to defend -- even by force -- his person, his liberty, and his property, then it follows that a group of men have the right to organize and support a common force to protect these rights constantly. Thus the principle of collective right -- its reason for existing, its lawfulness -- is based on individual right. And the common force that protects this collective right cannot logically have any other purpose or any other mission than that for which it acts as a substitute. Thus, since an individual cannot lawfully use force against the person, liberty, or property of another individual, then the common force -- for the same reason -- cannot lawfully be used to destroy the person, liberty, or property of individuals or groups.
Such a perversion of force would be, in both cases, contrary to our premise. Force has been given to us to defend our own individual rights. Who will dare to say that force has been given to us to destroy the equal rights of our brothers? Since no individual acting separately can lawfully use force to destroy the rights of others, does it not logically follow that the same principle also applies to the common force that is nothing more than the organized combination of the individual forces?
If this is true, then nothing can be more evident than this: The law is the organization of the natural right of lawful defense. It is the substitution of a common force for individual forces. And this common force is to do only what the individual forces have a natural and lawful right to do: to protect persons, liberties, and properties; to maintain the right of each, and to cause justice to reign over us all.
If you haven't read it, you should.
As for your issue of not forcing you to pay, I do wholeheartedly agree with your sentiment, but the structure needed for collective force (eg, Armed Forces, Police) has to be financed somehow. And because we live in a violent world, with nations and states that would gladly take the fruits of our labors grown in liberty (assuming your anarchist ideal), it follows that a collective defense must be able to deal with threats of external plunder. So how does your ideal deal with threats such as these? How useful is your freedom and desired ability to pay nothing for even the most minimal state possible if an army (one that has spent decades developing war machines to conquer your land and take your possessions and perhaps your liberty) is massed on your border?
-
MobileD,
Call me Mobile.
Are humans equipped to live in peace without some kind of governance?
If humans are rational, then "governence" need not be with force, but can instead be with incentives.
I'm with you on the principles, but it seems reality and history say certain humans will always seek to deprive others of property, liberty or life, if it benefits them.
Abstractly, it is absurd to use the past to predict the future for things that have free will. Only by starting with axioms and using deduction can you find the truth.
Practically, it is absurd to believe that there must be only one monopolistic security force.
The law is the organization of the natural right of lawful defense. It is the substitution of a common force for individual forces. And this common force is to do only what the individual forces have a natural and lawful right to do: to protect persons, liberties, and properties; to maintain the right of each, and to cause justice to reign over us all.
Logically, the common force cannot aquire a right I have not given it, nor can it force me to pay for something I do not want.
If you haven't read it, you should.
I have.
As for your issue of not forcing you to pay, I do wholeheartedly agree with your sentiment, but the structure needed for collective force (eg, Armed Forces, Police) has to be financed somehow.
Why do you believe it must be supported with force? If it is something people desire, why do you believe they won't pay for it?
So how does your ideal deal with threats such as these?
People will pay for it. And because of the competition inherent in a free market, it will be much more efficient and cheaper than a state army. As well, I point you to an article (http://freetalklive.com/wiki/index.php?title=Defense_in_an_Anarcho-Capitalist_society) by Dr. Pogo (of http://antistate.com).
-
The state cannot raise a military or pay people to be ambassadors to foreign nations without taxation.
Can you afford a house in England that you won't need after your stint as ambassador is up? can you afford it anyways? Can a well-armed militia be raised to take part in WWI? WWII? Whatever the causes of those wars, us being in them was a non-choice. Mexico was in cahoots with Nazi Germany and the Japs decided attacking us first was the best way to try and stop our trade embargo with them (among other reasons, IIRC).
As long as it is clear and well defined what the government can and cannot tax for - the building and maintaining of post roads and roads to connect the bases, the raising of a well-armed and trained army, etc. - and the American people are willing to FIGHT to keep it that way, it shouldn't be seen as a violation of rights. These are absolutely necessary to the functions of a government, and you cannot deal with other governments on equal footing without ambassadors and statesmen to deal with them. You cannot deal with them on equal footing without a standing army. We would have lost WWI and WWII without our military-industrial complex. Yes, I want Constitutionally limited taxes, not because I like having parts of my check taken away, but because I like being well defended in my homeland.
You just like opening stuff up, don't you? Can of worms? Pandora's box? Six-pack of raining blows? :-)
-
certain humans will always seek to deprive others of property, liberty or life, if it benefits them. They don't need a state to do it and it is this state of man which prompts the 'neccessary evil' of government.
Nor can the state prevent this.
-
certain humans will always seek to deprive others of property, liberty or life, if it benefits them. They don't need a state to do it and it is this state of man which prompts the 'neccessary evil' of government.
Nor can the state prevent this.
I agree, the state cannot prevent all crimes against anothers rights; however, if there is no state then who will execute punishment? And if punishinments are given, who will determine whether those punishments are not excessive and that the person was given a fair "trial"?
-
See other discussions here regarding Dispute Resolution Organizations, or DRO's.
I personally think the court system is far from the worst thing we have to worry about with the state. It's one of the most basic functions of government.
-
I agree, the state cannot prevent all crimes against anothers rights; however, if there is no state then who will execute punishment?
The purpose of justice is not to punish the transgressor, it is to make the victim whole.
And if punishinments are given, who will determine whether those punishments are not excessive and that the person was given a fair "trial"?
Arbitrators will gain a reputation for being a fair.
I personally think the court system is far from the worst thing we have to worry about with the state. It's one of the most basic functions of government.
It's also one of the easiest to replace.
-
I agree, the state cannot prevent all crimes against anothers rights; however, if there is no state then who will execute punishment?
The purpose of justice is not to punish the transgressor, it is to make the victim whole.
And if punishinments are given, who will determine whether those punishments are not excessive and that the person was given a fair "trial"?
Arbitrators will gain a reputation for being a fair.
I personally think the court system is far from the worst thing we have to worry about with the state. It's one of the most basic functions of government.
It's also one of the easiest to replace.
Putting a person to death makes them whole? I deal with Arbitrators all the time....rarely are they fair. Personal opinon though.
-
Putting a person to death makes them whole?
No.
I deal with Arbitrators all the time....rarely are they fair.
And there is not much competition.
-
It's also one of the easiest to replace.
I disagree. Social Security, the Park System, Dept of Education, etc. There are endless bureacracies as costly and/or intrusive or more so, that could be replaced with things people are already familiar with, e.g. private schools, private parks, private retirement plans ... that already exist.
-
It's also one of the easiest to replace.
I disagree. Social Security, the Park System, Dept of Education, etc. There are endless bureacracies as costly and/or intrusive or more so, that could be replaced with things people are already familiar with, e.g. private schools, private parks, private retirement plans ... that already exist.
You're right, I don't know what I was thinking. Anyway, governments courts are by no means sacred, and should be replaced by voluntary institutions.
-
For sometime the government tried to sell the idea that the jails were used to rehabilitate the criminals. Unfortunately, the justice system is more about punishment and retribution then rehabilitating. If the true intent of the government was to help these individuals become "whole" then there would be a lot more therapy and classes within the institutions to fascilitate it and sentencing someone to death before attempting rehabilitation would not make sense.
Nothing like sitting in a tiny cell all day going nuts and waiting to get gang raped to fix your mental issues.....
-
For sometime the government tried to sell the idea that the jails were used to rehabilitate the criminals. Unfortunately, the justice system is more about punishment and retribution then rehabilitating. If the true intent of the government was to help these individuals become "whole" then there would be a lot more therapy and classes within the institutions to fascilitate it and sentencing someone to death before attempting rehabilitation would not make sense.
Nothing like sitting in a tiny cell all day going nuts and waiting to get gang raped to fix your mental issues.....
And the problem would be cut in half if the drug war would end.
-
Ria, the purpose of justice is to make the victim whole, not the criminal.
-
Quote from: MobileDigit on Today at 12:52:53 PM
If humans are rational, then "governence" need not be with force, but can instead be with incentives.
That's a big 'if'. Humans are definately reasoning creatures, it is a hallmark of intelligence and what seperates us from the rest of organic life. But what do you mean by 'rational'? Many, many people are screwed up, damaged goods who don't always act with the rights of others in mind. Marxism is a rational doctrine builit upon false premises. Our premises are the rub and human history does not comment well upon most people's ability to think from sound principles. Heck, many people are dimly aware they have premises in the first place!
As for incentives, I think the threat of force is quite an incentive! Seriously, though, what kind of incentives do you refer?
Quote from: Highlander
I'm with you on the principles, but it seems reality and history say certain humans will always seek to deprive others of property, liberty or life, if it benefits them.
Quote from: MobileDigit
Abstractly, it is absurd to use the past to predict the future for things that have free will.
My quote does not comment upon the future, except the logical inference that, given human nature over all of human history, there is no logical reason to think it will change now or at all.
Quote from: MobileDigit
Only by starting with axioms and using deduction can you find the truth.
Axiomatic reasoning is indeed an excellent tool to arrive at almost certain truths, but has limits and cannot lead anyone to a Grand Unifying Truth!
Quote from: MobileDigit
Practically, it is absurd to believe that there must be only one monopolistic security force.
Quote from: Bastiat, The Law
The law is the organization of the natural right of lawful defense. It is the substitution of a common force for individual forces. And this common force is to do only what the individual forces have a natural and lawful right to do: to protect persons, liberties, and properties; to maintain the right of each, and to cause justice to reign over us all.
Quote from: MobileDigit
Logically, the common force cannot aquire a right I have not given it, nor can it force me to pay for something I do not want.
Forgive me for imprecision, but by 'common force' I don't not intend to suggest 'only one' monopolistic force. Understand that common force is only moral because the collective is made up of individuals. I say that if I have the right to defend my natural rights (however derived or labeled) with force, there does exist a collective right to force, but only in the defense of those rights.
Also understand that I do think a standing army violates the above principles and we'd be better organized by member state militias, which would be best organized by county level militias, which all agree to submit to national authority depending on the local take of the threat to the nation. Kind of like the way utility companies all have cooperative agreements to recover from national calamities.
Quote from: Highlander
As for your issue of not forcing you to pay, I do wholeheartedly agree with your sentiment, but the structure needed for collective force (eg, Armed Forces, Police) has to be financed somehow.
Quote from: MobileDigit
Why do you believe it must be supported with force? If it is something people desire, why do you believe they won't pay for it?
You make a fine point, so let me ask you. Suppose we have common defense and justice systems financed by voluntary contributions from individuals, corporations and local governments. You are now no longer forced to pay for something you do not want (central defense from foreign or domestic looters). No, you prefer to hire your own private security for local looters and think the anarcho-capitalist ambassador businessman will protect our collective interests abroad.
Informed persons in global commerce learn of an invasion plan by the authoritarian People's Republic of Whereizitstan, run by a die hard click of international Scientologists who cannot abide such a prosperous existance for their mortal Thetan enemies and are deterimined to conquer your land and put your prosperity to use in the name of L Ron! The militias you have not supported over the years are put on high alert. You live in a border state and the PRW army has massed on your border. Cooperative units from other federal states form under Federal Rules of Martial Unity and mass in your state on your border to repel the massing army. After a month long stand off and few minor skirmishes, the PRW finds the whole proposition too expensive and withdraws.
The massed PRW army is incontestable proof a threat to your life, liberty and/or property. The massed forces protected your lands.
Now the question: Do 'we' have a right to bill you for services rendered, since you didn't buy into the plan before the crises?
Quote from: Highlander on Today at 11:57:17 AM
So how does your ideal deal with threats such as these?
Quote from: MobileDigit
People will pay for it. And because of the competition inherent in a free market, it will be much more efficient and cheaper than a state army. As well, I point you to an article by Dr. Pogo (of http://antistate.com).
No offense to Dr. Pogo, but I think some of it contains faulty premises based on ideals rather than reality.
Quote from: Dr. Pogo
Because we the anarchists aren't being led by a four star general of any kind, we can present as many fronts, strategies, and methods of attack as we can think of. The possible costs are as numerous as the very population itself: it's a free market of warfare.
What exactly does this look like in reality? How is it organized? Who is in charge? How do we handle the would be 'warlord'? This ideal you present very much looks like a feudal society! How do we insure justice for the weak from the strong? Are they not entitled to the same rights as the capable? Are they allowed to voluntarily colletivize for their own defense? How about in the areas they live? Can they colletively hire a security force for the territories in which the collective own? Can they elect a private board to manage the roads and personnel hired by collective contribution? If they do this, they self-govern and the apparatus to do so collectively is a state, is it not?
-
certain humans will always seek to deprive others of property, liberty or life, if it benefits them. They don't need a state to do it and it is this state of man which prompts the 'neccessary evil' of government.
Nor can the state prevent this.
I think it can, if properly structured, mitigate it. I don't think I'm arguing a limited state because of prevention, rather as a deterance.
-
For sometime the government tried to sell the idea that the jails were used to rehabilitate the criminals. Unfortunately, the justice system is more about punishment and retribution then rehabilitating. If the true intent of the government was to help these individuals become "whole" then there would be a lot more therapy and classes within the institutions to fascilitate it and sentencing someone to death before attempting rehabilitation would not make sense.
Nothing like sitting in a tiny cell all day going nuts and waiting to get gang raped to fix your mental issues.....
And the problem would be cut in half if the drug war would end.
You got that right!
-
Ria, the purpose of justice is to make the victim whole, not the criminal.
And how do we achieve justice in Anarchy? How can we be assured of evidentiary rules? What if the accused doesn't recognize your court? What if the penalized by arbitration renegs upon his agreement to submit to the arbitor's rule? What then? Is force then justified? And by whom? Is it justified only by the victim? Or can the victim use force by proxy? What if the victim is mistaken as to the aggressor and kills an innocent in retribution?
Power is achieved either by force or collective assent (enough to quash violent dissent), how will it be distributed under an Anarcho-capitalist regime?
-
The state cannot exist without taxation.
even in an anarchy economic rent attaches to all locations under conditions of scarcity
if all locations are legally claimed (although not all occupied) then the collection of economic rent from the excluded to the excluders is a tax in kind but not in name...thus in an anarchy that has landowners collecting economic rent - the landowners are a government.
-
if all locations are legally claimed (although not all occupied) then the collection of economic rent from the excluded to the excluders is a tax in kind but not in name...thus in an anarchy that has landowners collecting economic rent - the landowners are a government.
This walks like a feudal duck. Shhh! Can you hear the faint 'quacketh' of yon duck?
-
"Those who do not perish in war will perish from pestilence. So why bother shaving?"
-Woody Allen
-
if all locations are legally claimed (although not all occupied) then the collection of economic rent from the excluded to the excluders is a tax in kind but not in name...thus in an anarchy that has landowners collecting economic rent - the landowners are a government.
This walks like a feudal duck. Shhh! Can you hear the faint 'quacketh' of yon duck?
how so?
I am assuming that in an anarchy property relations as it relates to land ownership would be the same as today...
-
how so?
I am assuming that in an anarchy property relations as it relates to land ownership would be the same as today...
You said "thus in an anarchy that has landowners collecting economic rent - the landowners are a government."
In a feudal society, landownders collected rent from the residents of his land. Or am I missing some fundamental of feudal society?
-
But what do you mean by 'rational'?
Able to analyze cost versus benefit.
Seriously, though, what kind of incentives do you refer?
Economic incentives; people might not do business with you if you smoke cocaine, sodomize dogs and own guns. Similar to a credit rating, a contract rating could be used by organizations to screen out people they did not want to associate with. Many people don't think this would occur in a big city, but without a government, who knows what could nonviolently fill the void. There might be also be Private Defense Agencies to help protect property. Criminals would know if they attempted to violate someone's rights, they could face instant death.
My quote does not comment upon the future, except the logical inference that, given human nature over all of human history, there is no logical reason to think it will change now or at all.
There is no logical reason to think that the basis of man is violence, instead of man being in violent situations.
Axiomatic reasoning is indeed an excellent tool to arrive at almost certain truths, but has limits and cannot lead anyone to a Grand Unifying Truth!
Incorrect, if the reasoning is not flawed, deduction is completely true.
I say that if I have the right to defend my natural rights (however derived or labeled) with force, there does exist a collective right to force, but only in the defense of those rights.
If you do not delegate the right to the protection of the rights, they do not have the right to protect your rights.
Also understand that I do think a standing army violates the above principles and we'd be better organized by member state militias, which would be best organized by county level militias, which all agree to submit to national authority depending on the local take of the threat to the nation. Kind of like the way utility companies all have cooperative agreements to recover from national calamities.
What is a member state?
Do 'we' have a right to bill you for services rendered, since you didn't buy into the plan before the crises?
It is nonsense to claim that I owe you for something that I did not agree to.
What exactly does this look like in reality? How is it organized? Who is in charge?
Competition will sort this out, with the best and most efficient businesses surviving. We cannot and should not act like a state and try to plan out how society should be organized, or how it will deal with its troubles.
How do we handle the would be 'warlord'? This ideal you present very much looks like a feudal society!
Warlords will be driven out by the aforementioned solutions for criminals.
How do we insure justice for the weak from the strong? Are they not entitled to the same rights as the capable?
The strong will voluntarily support the weak, or the weak will support themselves. And yes they are, but if you rape a woman, and she has a beautiful child prodigy baby, does that make the crime any less a crime?
Are they allowed to voluntarily colletivize for their own defense? How about in the areas they live? Can they colletively hire a security force for the territories in which the collective own? Can they elect a private board to manage the roads and personnel hired by collective contribution? If they do this, they self-govern and the apparatus to do so collectively is a state, is it not?
Yes to all except the last. It is not because it acts as a club, which you join and can leave at will, instead of a violent entity that claims you are subject to it. If it did so, yes, it would be a state.
I don't think I'm arguing a limited state because of prevention, rather as a deterance.
If you deter, aren't you preventing?
And how do we achieve justice in Anarchy?
Private arbitration.
How can we be assured of evidentiary rules?
Competition will assure this, as it does for every other standardization issue.
What if the accused doesn't recognize your court?
He will face an economic incentive to agree to a trial because if he does not, the court might tell a contract rating organization that this person does not recognize a legitimate court, and he will suffer from people not wanting to do business with him.
What if the penalized by arbitration renegs upon his agreement to submit to the arbitor's rule? What then? Is force then justified? And by whom?
Force is then justified if he agreed beforehand to be subject to force.
Is it justified only by the victim? Or can the victim use force by proxy?
It depends on what he agreed too.
What if the victim is mistaken as to the aggressor and kills an innocent in retribution?
Then the victim would be a murderer.
Power is achieved either by force or collective assent (enough to quash violent dissent), how will it be distributed under an Anarcho-capitalist regime?
I do not understand your question.
Anarchism is not a form of government, so it cannot be a regime.
if all locations are legally claimed (although not all occupied)
If all locations are rightfully claimed then they are all occupied.
-
how so?
I am assuming that in an anarchy property relations as it relates to land ownership would be the same as today...
You said "thus in an anarchy that has landowners collecting economic rent - the landowners are a government."
In a feudal society, landownders collected rent from the residents of his land. Or am I missing some fundamental of feudal society?
got it - how would an anarchy be any different than fuedalism?
the state and a landlord act one in the same...they have absolute dominion over a specific location.
-
If all locations are rightfully claimed then they are all occupied.
they would be legally occupied but not necessarily physically occupied.
if the landowner collects the economic rent - how is this any different than a government?
-
got it - how would an anarchy be any different than fuedalism?
the state and a landlord act one in the same...they have absolute dominion over a specific location.
Right. I don't think there is much difference.
-
Mobile,
Brevity is the soul of wit, in a substantive discussion it is an indication of simplistic reasoning! I'll get to your meritous points later tonight.
-
If all locations are rightfully claimed then they are all occupied.
they would be legally occupied but not necessarily physically occupied.
if the landowner collects the economic rent - how is this any different than a government?
Ben, please define economic rent.
-
Brevity is the soul of wit, in a substantive discussion it is an indication of simplistic reasoning!
Simple reasoning is usually clear, and clear reasoning is usually correct.
-
If all locations are rightfully claimed then they are all occupied.
they would be legally occupied but not necessarily physically occupied.
if the landowner collects the economic rent - how is this any different than a government?
Ben, please define economic rent.
for simplicity purposes - unimproved land values that are socially created rather than individually created by the landowner's labor.
-
got it - how would an anarchy be any different than fuedalism?
the state and a landlord act one in the same...they have absolute dominion over a specific location.
Right. I don't think there is much difference.
agreed...
-
the state and a landlord act one in the same...they have absolute dominion over a specific location.
The difference, which you always seem to fail to mention, is that the land owner claims first, or trades a claim with a previous land owner, while the state claims after other people alreadly have.
-
the state and a landlord act one in the same...they have absolute dominion over a specific location.
The difference, which you always seem to fail to mention, is that the land owner claims first, or trades a claim with a previous land owner, while the state claims after other people alreadly have.
that state recognizes someone's claim in the form of a privilege called a title backed by force.
if the landowner's claims the economic rent backed by force then it is nothing more than a tax imposed and thus no different in this respect from a state.
-
Ben, please define economic rent.
for simplicity purposes - unimproved land values that are socially created rather than individually created by the landowner's labor.
Forgive my ignorance. Socially created?
-
Forgive my ignorance. Socially created?
to be more exact - the unimproved land values are the result of:
1. natural opportunities
2. via the landowner's neighbors labor (positive externalities)
3. public infrastructure investments
4. rising demand via population increases
-
The fact is BenTucker's argument relies on Locke's falty proviso, and Ben doesn't add anything to a thread, he just restate his ill founded theories and terms whenever he can.
-
Brevity is the soul of wit, in a substantive discussion it is an indication of simplistic reasoning!
Simple reasoning is usually clear, and clear reasoning is usually correct.
I didn't say 'simple', did I?
-
If humans are rational, then "governence" need not be with force, but can instead be with incentives.
But what do you mean by 'rational'?
Able to analyze cost versus benefit.
As I said, that is a big 'IF'! Not all humans are rational by this definition, how are they to be governed by incentive?
Seriously, though, what kind of incentives do you refer?
Many people don't think this would occur in a big city, but without a government, who knows what could nonviolently fill the void. There might be also be Private Defense Agencies to help protect property. Criminals would know if they attempted to violate someone's rights, they could face instant death.
Would those deaths be nonviolent filler?
There is no logical reason to think that the basis of man is violence, instead of man being in violent situations.
You mean other than thousands of years of recorded Human history? Yeah, if I ignore those, this statement is logical!
Axiomatic reasoning is indeed an excellent tool to arrive at almost certain truths, but has limits and cannot lead anyone to a Grand Unifying Truth!
Incorrect, if the reasoning is not flawed, deduction is completely true.
You mean if the premises (axioms) aren't flawed, deduction is true? Because 'reasoning' is reasoning, whatever the premise, right or wrong.
Have you heard of Gödel's proof? Please read this excellent discussion (http://forum.darwinawards.com/lofiversion/index.php/t5714.html) on the limits of logic. Your faith in logic to arrive at The Truth is misplaced, grasshopper.
Do 'we' have a right to bill you for services rendered, since you didn't buy into the plan before the crises?
It is nonsense to claim that I owe you for something that I did not agree to.
So you reap the benefit of collective protection and don't want to pay up? How is such a person dealt with in an Anarcho-Capitalist utopia?
What exactly does this look like in reality? How is it organized? Who is in charge?
Competition will sort this out, with the best and most efficient businesses surviving. We cannot and should not act like a state and try to plan out how society should be organized, or how it will deal with its troubles.
What a pat answer. "Competition" will sort it all out! How nice and convenient! I'm not asking 'us' to plan out society, I'm simply asking you to give me a likely scenario of organization under your ideal. Given the nature of humans and perhaps my own limited vision, Feudalism seems the logical end of your ideal.
How do we handle the would be 'warlord'? This ideal you present very much looks like a feudal society!
Warlords will be driven out by the aforementioned solutions for criminals.
This would be another nonviolent driving out? These are seemingly pat answers with little depth, I hate to say.
How do we insure justice for the weak from the strong? Are they not entitled to the same rights as the capable?
The strong will voluntarily support the weak, or the weak will support themselves. And yes they are, but if you rape a woman, and she has a beautiful child prodigy baby, does that make the crime any less a crime?
Can you point to stateless examples of this which prove a rule or only exceptions to the opposite rule?
I don't think I'm arguing a limited state because of prevention, rather as a deterrence.
If you deter, aren't you preventing?
Yes and no. First a deterrent aims to prevent, but doesn't prevent outright, only in some or most cases. It isn't TOTAL prevention.
And how do we achieve justice in Anarchy?
Private arbitration.
Pat. Simplistic. What if one party to arbitration decides they will not abide by the ruling? How will it be enforced?
How can we be assured of evidentiary rules?
Competition will assure this, as it does for every other standardization issue.
Ah, the old 'competetion' panecea!
What if the accused doesn't recognize your court?
He will face an economic incentive to agree to a trial because if he does not, the court might tell a contract rating organization that this person does not recognize a legitimate court, and he will suffer from people not wanting to do business with him.
What if the issue isn't business but a personal tort? Say a person drives their car into your house and refuses to pay damages? How do you propose to extract just compensation for their actions?
What if the penalized by arbitration renegs upon his agreement to submit to the arbitor's rule? What then? Is force then justified? And by whom?
Force is then justified if he agreed beforehand to be subject to force.
So if he didn't, then you are screwed and denied justice?
Power is achieved either by force or collective assent (enough to quash violent dissent), how will it be distributed under an Anarcho-capitalist regime?
I do not understand your question.
Anarchism is not a form of government, so it cannot be a regime.
Sure it can. I'm using the word in the sense of "A prevailing social system or pattern". So what is the answer?
-
The fact is BenTucker's argument relies on Locke's falty proviso, and Ben doesn't add anything to a thread, he just restate his ill founded theories and terms whenever he can.
Believe me, I'm well aware of Ben's methods. I'm intrigued by this though.
-
The fact is BenTucker's argument relies on Locke's falty proviso, and Ben doesn't add anything to a thread, he just restate his ill founded theories and terms whenever he can.
Believe me, I'm well aware of Ben's methods. I'm intrigued by this though.
prior to Locke's proviso there is no economic rent that attaches to locations - why would I pay someone to locate where he has choosen to locate if I can occupy another location that does not economically harm me (aka enough and as good has been left in common for me to homestead?)
-
Not all humans are rational by this definition, how are they to be governed by incentive?
They aren't. But these people are no more than mere beasts, and would likely have a guardian who was capable of rationality.
Would those deaths be nonviolent filler?
The death of a person who violates rights is moral.
You mean other than thousands of years of recorded Human history? Yeah, if I ignore those, this statement is logical!
You approach the theory of human action in an inaccurate way. Evidence cannot disprove theory, because of the innate complexity of evidence. Only theory can disprove theory. It may work with physics, but not when working with free will.
You mean if the premises (axioms) aren't flawed, deduction is true? Because 'reasoning' is reasoning, whatever the premise, right or wrong.
Axioms cannot be flawed, or else they are not axioms.
Have you heard of Gödel's proof? Please read this excellent discussion (http://forum.darwinawards.com/lofiversion/index.php/t5714.html) on the limits of logic. Your faith in logic to arrive at The Truth is misplaced, grasshopper.
In the end it all comes down to the logician's intuitive feeling of the truth.
So you reap the benefit of collective protection and don't want to pay up?
If you expect not to get my wealth then you will a devise a way of not spending resources on me.
How is such a person dealt with in an Anarcho-Capitalist utopia?
Nonviolently.
What a pat answer. "Competition" will sort it all out! How nice and convenient!
Actually it's not at all. It's simply not possible to reliably anticipate what business organization will look like a free society. Anarchism is not a state, and so there is not a definable pattern of society. Asking me what I think anarcho-capitalism will look like and then attempting to poke holes in my logic does not prove anarcho-capitalism is untenable.
I'm not asking 'us' to plan out society, I'm simply asking you to give me a likely scenario of organization under your ideal. Given the nature of humans and perhaps my own limited vision, Feudalism seems the logical end of your ideal.
I have already done this: economic incentives would replace the force the government is currently using.
This would be another nonviolent driving out? These are seemingly pat answers with little depth, I hate to say.
I find it amazing that nearly every anti-anarcho-capitalist seems to say the same things.
Do you seriously believe that the government is stopping warlords? What about what happened in New Orleans: it was only after the gun-owning middle class was forced to leave that it degenerated into chaos.
Can you point to stateless examples of this which prove a rule or only exceptions to the opposite rule?
Charity. It is necessarily stateless because the state is not forcing people to do so.
Pat. Simplistic.
What an irritating fellow you are!
What if one party to arbitration decides they will not abide by the ruling? How will it be enforced?
I already said that if it depends on what they previously agreed to when they agreed to the trial.
Ah, the old 'competetion' panecea!
Can you name one issue that a free market cannot solve? If not, it truly is a panacea!
What if the issue isn't business but a personal tort?
You're missing the point. I would not want to contract with a violent criminal, and if a contract rating organization said he was not agreeing on a trial for a legitimate offense, he would likely lose his job, and no reputable business would be willing to trade with him. Economic incentives.
So if he didn't, then you are screwed and denied justice?
That's correct, and he would suffer economic hardship. Is a better solution to open Pandora's box and point a gun at him?
Power is achieved either by force or collective assent (enough to quash violent dissent), how will it be distributed under an Anarcho-capitalist regime?
I do not understand your question.
Anarchism is not a form of government, so it cannot be a regime.
Sure it can. I'm using the word in the sense of "A prevailing social system or pattern". So what is the answer?
Power will be solely economic, and thus voluntary.
-
Not all humans are rational by this definition, how are they to be governed by incentive?
They aren't. But these people are no more than mere beasts, and would likely have a guardian who was capable of rationality.
We could go at this for days, perhaps we should branch and argue about human nature. You seem to have a much higher faith in free-will to over come centuries of violence and strife, which has transcended all human systems throughout time.
You mean other than thousands of years of recorded Human history? Yeah, if I ignore those, this statement is logical!
You approach the theory of human action in an inaccurate way. Evidence cannot disprove theory, because of the innate complexity of evidence. Only theory can disprove theory. It may work with physics, but not when working with free will.
I don't disagree with you where apriori axiomatic deduction is concerned. I've read Human Action, Theory and History, Liberalism and related texts (I hold Mises as pre-eminent). I'm a regular reader of Mises.org and am familiar with your position. Again, I think your entire case is based on a flawed view of human nature, if written history (as imperfect as it is) and my own observational history is any guide.
Have you heard of Gödel's proof? Please read this excellent discussion (http://forum.darwinawards.com/lofiversion/index.php/t5714.html) on the limits of logic. Your faith in logic to arrive at The Truth is misplaced, grasshopper.
In the end it all comes down to the logician's intuitive feeling of the truth.
Right. We agree a great deal on this issue, at least it appears. I call that intuitive feeling of the truth "faith". :)
What a pat answer. "Competition" will sort it all out! How nice and convenient!
Actually it's not at all. It's simply not possible to reliably anticipate what business organization will look like a free society. Anarchism is not a state, and so there is not a definable pattern of society. Asking me what I think anarcho-capitalism will look like and then attempting to poke holes in my logic does not prove anarcho-capitalism is untenable.
I'm not asking 'us' to plan out society, I'm simply asking you to give me a likely scenario of organization under your ideal. Given the nature of humans and perhaps my own limited vision, Feudalism seems the logical end of your ideal.
I have already done this: economic incentives would replace the force the government is currently using.
That's really easy for you to say. Again, I largely agree with you on principle. I don't think you will ever rid the world of men and groups of men who desire power and dominion over their fellows. Nor do I think it reasonable to expect the current crop of powerful men to give it up without violence.
This would be another nonviolent driving out? These are seemingly pat answers with little depth, I hate to say.
I find it amazing that nearly every anti-anarcho-capitalist seems to say the same things.
Do you seriously believe that the government is stopping warlords? What about what happened in New Orleans: it was only after the gun-owning middle class was forced to leave that it degenerated into chaos.
Please bear in mind I advocate limited government. I think competition, cooperation and persuasion is the best way to live together in peace. However, those who do not must be dealt with. That is reality.
Pat. Simplistic.
What an irritating fellow you are!
I apologize, Mobile, it was late and you are nothing, if not faithful to address every jot... ;)
Ah, the old 'competition' panacea!
Can you name one issue that a free market cannot solve? If not, it truly is a panacea!
What if the issue isn't business but a personal tort?
You're missing the point. I would not want to contract with a violent criminal, and if a contract rating organization said he was not agreeing on a trial for a legitimate offense, he would likely lose his job, and no reputable business would be willing to trade with him. Economic incentives.
So if he didn't, then you are screwed and denied justice?
That's correct, and he would suffer economic hardship. Is a better solution to open Pandora's box and point a gun at him?
Power is achieved either by force or collective assent (enough to quash violent dissent), how will it be distributed under an Anarcho-capitalist regime?
I do not understand your question.
Anarchism is not a form of government, so it cannot be a regime.
Sure it can. I'm using the word in the sense of "A prevailing social system or pattern". So what is the answer?
Power will be solely economic, and thus voluntary.
Well, see above, I'm with you in spirit, I do believe in the power of consumer choice and do believe it is the best way to achieve a meritorious balance among people. I think the free market cannot solve the problem of people who wish to rule over others. It cannot overcome tribalist tendencies. When I try to reason out what society might look like under An-Cap, I cannot escape that strong men will maintain order over given areas, especially areas that are essentially lawless. Less able people will provide money or services to these strongmen for protection. This is no different from plain old fealty.
In closing, I fall back on Bastiat's observation of a collective right derived from individual rights. I prefer the law over lawlessness, but justice before all. When the state does more than act to protect individual rights, it is immoral and should be vigilantly held to that basic charge.
I agree you shouldn't be forced to join a collective, even one justified on the above reasoning, perhaps a compromise would be to allow individuals to claim sovereignty in the same manner American Indian tribes do? Governments would then get funds from you when providing you with services you pay for, no?
-
Why is it that every discussion is eventually hijacked by BenTucker and his moronic land rent bullshit?
"A fanatic is one who can't change his mind and won't change the subject." --Winston Churchill
-
Why is it that every discussion is eventually hijacked by BenTucker and his moronic land rent bullshit?
"A fanatic is one who can't change his mind and won't change the subject." --Winston Churchill
Winston Churchill quotes:
"Land, which is a necessity of human existence, which is the original source of all wealth, which is strictly limited in extent, which is fixed geographical position land, I say, differs from all other forms of property in these primary and fundamental conditions."
"Land monopoly is not the only monopoly, but it is the mother of all other monopolies."
"I have made speeches by the yard on the subject of land value taxation, and you know what a supporter I am of that policy."
-
Why is it that every discussion is eventually hijacked by BenTucker and his moronic land rent bullshit?
He's on at least 4 different capitalist forums spouting his idiocy.
You seem to have a much higher faith in free-will to over come centuries of violence and strife, which has transcended all human systems throughout time.
Arguing that humans are fundemantally violent by using examples in which the humans were in violent situations proves absolutely nothing. It's much more logical and consistant to argue that humans are rational; when faced with more to gain by using violence, violence is used, when faced with more to gain by using nonviolence, nonviolence is used.
Again, I think your entire case is based on a flawed view of human nature, if written history (as imperfect as it is) and my own observational history is any guide.
I believe we should take that to a new thread.
I don't think you will ever rid the world of men and groups of men who desire power and dominion over their fellows.
We don't need to, we only need to make it a more profitable option to cooperate.
Nor do I think it reasonable to expect the current crop of powerful men to give it up without violence.
So you believe the Free State Project is destined to fail?
I think competition, cooperation and persuasion is the best way to live together in peace. However, those who do not must be dealt with. That is reality.
I agree. However, being 'dealt with' does not require violence. If I initiated force, or refused to pay court costs, and an organization tracked my violations, and businesses would not hire me, wouldn't that be dealing with me? Wouldn't that make me seriously consider not being violent?
I think the free market cannot solve the problem of people who wish to rule over others. It cannot overcome tribalist tendencies. When I try to reason out what society might look like under An-Cap, I cannot escape that strong men will maintain order over given areas, especially areas that are essentially lawless. Less able people will provide money or services to these strongmen for protection.
Imagine there are 10 security forces and free entry into the security market in say, New Hampshire. If one becomes rogue, the others prevent it from extorting the populace. An added check is that most residents own firearms. Exactly how is this situation not solving the problem of people attempting to rule over others?
This is no different from plain old fealty.
If you go into the woods and build a house, and then I come along after you and claim you are my serf and must pay me, that is immoral. What I am proposing is that you build a house and then you hire me, which is no different than hiring a maid.
I agree you shouldn't be forced to join a collective, even one justified on the above reasoning, perhaps a compromise would be to allow individuals to claim sovereignty in the same manner American Indian tribes do? Governments would then get funds from you when providing you with services you pay for, no?
If that was so, the government would not be a government, it would be a business. Governments are involuntary, businesses are voluntary.
-
If you go into the woods and build a house, and then I come along after you and claim you are my serf and must pay me, that is immoral.
beyond Locke's proviso the very fact that you occupy that location creates a monetary and legal obligation on me - what's the difference?
Governments are involuntary, businesses are voluntary
except when the business is a landlord and then it is no different than a government...
-
So you believe the Free State Project is destined to fail?
It already has.
-
[
I don't think you will ever rid the world of men and groups of men who desire power and dominion over their fellows.
We don't need to, we only need to make it a more profitable option to cooperate.
:?
cooperation....that sounds commie!
I thought capitalist are all about competition.
-
beyond Locke's proviso the very fact that you occupy that location creates a monetary and legal obligation on me
Incorrect. My liberty to own property does not restict you because it is not an option for you in the first place. Taking something out of an available pile does not restrict you.
:?
cooperation....that sounds commie!
I thought capitalist are all about competition.
Don't worry - it's a common mistake among deficient intellectuals. It's similar to thinking greed is solely seeking monetary profit, instead of the more general psychic profit.
Cooperation not to kill each other - competition to obtain property.
-
My liberty to own property does not restict you because it is not an option for you in the first place. Taking something out of an available pile does not restrict you.
it does if all of the pile is already legally claimed and I must "pick from the pile" inorder to actually exist because the pile can not be added to via labor...
this is just simple logic.
-
What is a deficient intellectual?
I don't think I've ever been called an intellectual before this.....
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/deficient
de·fi·cient
adj.
1. Lacking an essential quality or element: deficient in common sense.
2. Inadequate in amount or degree; insufficient: a deficient education.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/intellectual
intellectual
n. : An intellectual person.
n : a person who uses the mind creatively
Why not cooperation to obtain property?
cooperation is more efficient than competition.
-
What is a deficient intellectual?
I was going to use 'intellectually deficients'.
Why not cooperation to obtain property?
cooperation is more efficient than competition.
This is false. Cooperation requires only one way of doing something, while competition weeds out the inefficient processes.
-
Cooperation requires only one way of doing something, while competition weeds out the inefficient processes.
Requiring one way of doing something does not mean it is inefficient.
What if that "one way of doing something" is the most efficient way?
-
[
I don't think you will ever rid the world of men and groups of men who desire power and dominion over their fellows.
We don't need to, we only need to make it a more profitable option to cooperate.
:?
cooperation....that sounds commie!
I thought capitalist are all about competition.
Small 'c' communism is a fine way to cooperate. The key being you can leave the commune/church/civic org. when you think it no longer benefits you.
-
Why not cooperation to obtain property?
cooperation is more efficient than competition.
This is false. Cooperation requires only one way of doing something, while competition weeds out the inefficient processes.
I'm not sure I understand what you mean on the first part, would you expand? Also, consider that competition also breeds cooperation. There are countless examples if one focuses on the divsion of labor.
-
Cooperation requires only one way of doing something, while competition weeds out the inefficient processes.
Requiring one way of doing something does not mean it is inefficient.
What if that "one way of doing something" is the most efficient way?
The chance of that happening is incredibly small, and even if it wasn't, competition would still find it.
Why not cooperation to obtain property?
cooperation is more efficient than competition.
This is false. Cooperation requires only one way of doing something, while competition weeds out the inefficient processes.
I'm not sure I understand what you mean on the first part, would you expand?
If we are cooperating, we have to do something only one way. Also, if we compromise, we all lose.
Also, consider that competition also breeds cooperation. There are countless examples if one focuses on the divsion of labor.
Voluntary cooperation is a good as voluntary competition.
-
You seem to have a much higher faith in free-will to over come centuries of violence and strife, which has transcended all human systems throughout time.
Arguing that humans are fundemantally violent by using examples in which the humans were in violent situations proves absolutely nothing. It's much more logical and consistant to argue that humans are rational; when faced with more to gain by using violence, violence is used, when faced with more to gain by using nonviolence, nonviolence is used.
Do you have children? When I said 'my own observational history' I was referring to such things as what you see with small children. They are little savages without constant repetition and discipline! They grab what isn't theirs and frequently resort to violence when angered by their peers, hitting or biting or kicking! They will only change this behavior if someone more powerful than them takes action to correct them. EDIT: See this thread (http://bbs.freetalklive.com/index.php?topic=6874.0) for discussion which supports this assertion!
The violent criminals in our penal systems overwhelmingly come from fatherless homes. They end up that way because they lacked the correction I spoke of above. They aren't irrational, nor are all of them stupid. Without some authority to lock them away from a given society, they could well acquire arms and power and subject the weak in a totally stateless society.
If you look at the global anarchy among states, you see the same thing. You have regions where helpless people are ruled by totalitarian war lords, such was the case in Iraq. The neighbors do nothing to stop them, the big kids on the global block do nothing - in fact some actually cooperate with these guys. Look again to Baathist Iraq's deals with Russia, France & Germany!
So I do think it demonstrates something about human nature, if one looks from the micro examples in a nursery room to the macro examples on the world stage.
I don't think you will ever rid the world of men and groups of men who desire power and dominion over their fellows.
We don't need to, we only need to make it a more profitable option to cooperate.
I don't think it possible.
EDIT: The reason is because it is many times easier to just take the bread the little red hen made after months of planting, tending, harvesting, milling and baking it! If you have a lot of power, cooperation may appear less profitable.
So you believe the Free State Project is destined to fail?
What would success look like? Is the common goal of all free staters Anarcho-Capitalism, or a drastically limited state? If the former, I'd say yes, it will fail. The latter has a chance, but against well financed odds.
I think competition, cooperation and persuasion is the best way to live together in peace. However, those who do not must be dealt with. That is reality.
I agree. However, being 'dealt with' does not require violence. If I initiated force, or refused to pay court costs, and an organization tracked my violations, and businesses would not hire me, wouldn't that be dealing with me? Wouldn't that make me seriously consider not being violent?
I sincerely think it a utopian belief violent persons can be dealt with non-violently. The hypothetical person above could just as likely join a disreputable business or organization.
If people are rational, as you've said, then some end consumers might only take their own cost benefit into consideration, ignore moral considerations and would not care if he was getting stolen goods or those produced on the backs of some oppressed group.
I think the free market cannot solve the problem of people who wish to rule over others. It cannot overcome tribalist tendencies. When I try to reason out what society might look like under An-Cap, I cannot escape that strong men will maintain order over given areas, especially areas that are essentially lawless. Less able people will provide money or services to these strongmen for protection.
Imagine there are 10 security forces and free entry into the security market in say, New Hampshire. If one becomes rogue, the others prevent it from extorting the populace. An added check is that most residents own firearms. Exactly how is this situation not solving the problem of people attempting to rule over others?
First let us realize that to get from reality to your ideal would not ever be at a place where security forces are 'legit' so that some fraction can go rogue, but I'll play along anyway.
What if the one rogue force had always been rogue and looked really hot in her X-man uniform... no wait, what? Where was I? Oh yeah, the rogue force was bent on advancing weaponry to annihilate the remaining 9. Since the other 9 were mandated by AnCap principles to only use defensive force, The R force knows this and covertly develops a biological or chemical weapons which kill the fighters but leaves the property unharmed. Once they attack, it is likely too late for those protected by the other 9.
If you go into the woods and build a house, and then I come along after you and claim you are my serf and must pay me, that is immoral. What I am proposing is that you build a house and then you hire me, which is no different than hiring a maid.
What if the woods are your woods? By what mechanism would you prove title to the land under AnCap?
I agree you shouldn't be forced to join a collective, even one justified on the above reasoning, perhaps a compromise would be to allow individuals to claim sovereignty in the same manner American Indian tribes do? Governments would then get funds from you when providing you with services you pay for, no?
If that was so, the government would not be a government, it would be a business. Governments are involuntary, businesses are voluntary.
Good point. I'm guilty of ignoring the fact that I largely want what you want, I just believe humans need a common authority for certain basics, or humans devolve into tribal factions over whatever they most need or desire. I do think the best government for these basics are local, however. I also think we need protection from the other states on the planet.
Finally, I appreciate your willingness to slosh this out. I think AnCap is good and logical in the abstract, but faces the practical problems I've already mentioned.
-
They grab what isn't theirs and frequently resort to violence when angered by their peers, hitting or biting or kicking!
I was not like this, nor my sister. Also, don't children frequently say "He started it" or "She took my toy"? Is this not evidence to the fact that property rights are important?
Why must only one security force exist? If multiple ones do, and none force you to pay, it is anarchy.
They aren't irrational, nor are all of them stupid.
If they are not irrational, wouldn't they choose wealth over violence?
Without some authority to lock them away from a given society,
There is nothing in anarcho-capitalism theory that says this is immoral, only that they must consent to it in the first place.
they could well acquire arms and power and subject the weak in a totally stateless society.
They can also do this in a stateful society, but not in a society where the weak have weapons.
If you look at the global anarchy among states, you see the same thing. You have regions where helpless people are ruled by totalitarian war lords, such was the case in Iraq. The neighbors do nothing to stop them, the big kids on the global block do nothing - in fact some actually cooperate with these guys. Look again to Baathist Iraq's deals with Russia, France & Germany!
The problem with the argument that there is global anarchy because there is no world government is that states are not humans. States subjugate by their vary nature - taxation, while humans do not. Thus, you are again using a violent situation to "prove" human nature is violent.
The reason is because it is many times easier to just take the bread the little red hen made after months of planting, tending, harvesting, milling and baking it! If you have a lot of power, cooperation may appear less profitable.
And the big guns surrounding the little red hen's house make cooperation more profitable.
What would success look like? Is the common goal of all free staters Anarcho-Capitalism, or a drastically limited state? If the former, I'd say yes, it will fail. The latter has a chance, but against well financed odds.
I imagine success would look like the Libertarian party's platform.
In my opinion, the only chance for anarcho-capitalism is evolution, not revolution. I believe that a small enough government will allow private security and private courts, and will shrink until the security agencies could protect their clients from it, and government will die of starvation. :)
I sincerely think it a utopian belief violent persons can be dealt with non-violently.
They would be met violently if caught in the act.
The hypothetical person above could just as likely join a disreputable business or organization.
Would you trade with a disreputable business?
If people are rational, as you've said, then some end consumers might only take their own cost benefit into consideration, ignore moral considerations and would not care if he was getting stolen goods or those produced on the backs of some oppressed group.
This is true now as well, but then again other (and likely most) consumers would not buy from those companies. And you know, boycotts do work.
First let us realize that to get from reality to your ideal would not ever be at a place where security forces are 'legit' so that some fraction can go rogue, but I'll play along anyway.
I point you to my theory of how anarchism will come about, above.
Oh yeah, the rogue force was bent on advancing weaponry to annihilate the remaining 9. Since the other 9 were mandated by AnCap principles to only use defensive force, The R force knows this and covertly develops a biological or chemical weapons which kill the fighters but leaves the property unharmed. Once they attack, it is likely too late for those protected by the other 9.
By rogue agency I mean one practicing extortion. In that case, the legitimate agencies can protect their clients.
You seem to imply that a government would be able to solve this issue because it would search the rogue agency's property, but if the rogue agency is covertly developing weapons, how would the government know? If it was openly developing weapons, wouldn't the legitimate agencies be able to protect their clients with technology?
What if the woods are your woods? By what mechanism would you prove title to the land under AnCap?
I disagree that one can own woods without acting to change them. The mechanism could be however you could prove you rightfully own the property, witnesses, previous owner, court cases saying you do, etc.
-
My liberty to own property does not restict you because it is not an option for you in the first place. Taking something out of an available pile does not restrict you.
it does if all of the pile is already legally claimed and I must "pick from the pile" inorder to actually exist because the pile can not be added to via labor...
this is just simple logic.
Your argument: You have to occupy land in order to exist, and land is finite. Therefore, using land harms everyone else. Did I get that right?
Now, a counterexample:
You have to eat food in order to exist, and food is finite. Therefore, eating harms everyone else.
You have to drink water in order to exist, and water is finite. Therefore, drinking water harms everyone else.
You have to breathe oxygen in order to exist, and oxygen is finite, Therefore, breathing harms everyone else.
If land is subject to this "economic rent", why isn't food and air and water? If you can answer without relying on "this old dead guy said so", I'll give you a cookie.
-
When a person comes into existence, they either owe rent or are given free rent by someone. No free lunches, bubba. I don't know why you need pages of posts to explain this. I also don't see what the problem is.
-
My liberty to own property does not restict you because it is not an option for you in the first place. Taking something out of an available pile does not restrict you.
it does if all of the pile is already legally claimed and I must "pick from the pile" inorder to actually exist because the pile can not be added to via labor...
this is just simple logic.
Your argument: You have to occupy land in order to exist, and land is finite. Therefore, using land harms everyone else. Did I get that right?
Now, a counterexample:
You have to eat food in order to exist, and food is finite. Therefore, eating harms everyone else.
You have to drink water in order to exist, and water is finite. Therefore, drinking water harms everyone else.
You have to breathe oxygen in order to exist, and oxygen is finite, Therefore, breathing harms everyone else.
If land is subject to this "economic rent", why isn't food and air and water? If you can answer without relying on "this old dead guy said so", I'll give you a cookie.
food is produced via human labor therefore it is legitimate private property...3D spaces to occupy are not.
water and air beng part of the natural commons are subject to economic rent...
in NH all the surface water over 20 acres and all underground water is owned in common with the state as the public trustee.
when privately enclosing both air and water - today we are leaving "enough and as good in common for others"
the private enclosure of air to be used as a sink for our waste is a problem because we have gone beyond leaving "enough and as good" and thus we are all subjected to the flip side of economic rent in form of negative externalities.
-
When a person comes into existence, they either owe rent or are given free rent by someone. No free lunches, bubba. I don't know why you need pages of posts to explain this. I also don't see what the problem is.
then how can we have the "right of self-ownership" as the fundamental tenet of libertarianism if the right has to be purchased or gifted?
-
christian anarchist here. Actions have consequences. I pick the rules I'm going to folllow, and try to avoid the rules I don't care for. In older times, there was a thing called shunning. No one would buy from you, sell to you, or talk to you. Most people chose to move when that happened, as the alternative was loneliness or death.
For freedom!
-
In older times, there was a thing called shunning.
I think perhaps the Amish still have that as their most severe punishment
-
christian anarchist here. Actions have consequences. I pick the rules I'm going to folllow, and try to avoid the rules I don't care for. In older times, there was a thing called shunning. No one would buy from you, sell to you, or talk to you. Most people chose to move when that happened, as the alternative was loneliness or death.
For freedom!
Welcome to the bbs, bIll! I think we should bring back that concept.
-
I just saw this and voted. I voted before reading the explainations, but was pleased to find I voted correctly. I guess my understanding of the nomenclature is correct. I chose Free Market Reparationist. I consider myself an Anarcho-Capitalist, but I'm also realistic and practical, so I'd be happy to work within the state rubrick to achieve greater freedom if I thought it might succeed. I grew up with great reverence for the Declaration of Independence, Constitution and Bill of Rights. My reading of history revealed that even the signers of said documents didn't adhere to their own rules, so my hopes that pieces of paper could limit the government's power were dashed. Sometimes I consider the possibility that the only way real liberty could be achieved is if some great and powerful leader established geographical borders through force, then acted as a benevolent dictator, allowing the people of the so-called "country" to live in anarchy, but otherwise merely putting on the display of a state and military force. Fat chance.
The Free State project might achieve a sort of limited minarchy, and I'd be happy to participate if I were unmarried, but my wife wont move to NH. My only skepticism is that the police will relenquish their authority. It might be necessary to fire a lot of them and bar them from returning, then recruit new officers and train them differently. The police nowadays treat all citizens as potential criminals or as inferior creatures who are either too weak to protect ourselves. Just look at the story out of Nashua.
-
I was just listening to Friday's show and heard Manwich make the claim that those agreeing with him outnumber those agreeing with Ian by twenty times. He even referenced this poll as evidence.
I would like to point out that under 50% of the poll-takers made one of the two statist choices.
-
I saw this big topic and had to vote. :)
I guess I would be a "pacifist libertarian". But some self-described libertarians don't consider me to be "libertarian" even ... so maybe that doesn't fit.
-
some self-described libertarians don't consider me to be "libertarian" even ... so maybe that doesn't fit.
Who?
-
some self-described libertarians don't consider me to be "libertarian" even ... so maybe that doesn't fit.
Who?
I am not quite sure what your question refers to.
-
Who are the self-described libertarians that don't consider you a libertarian?
-
some self-described libertarians don't consider me to be "libertarian" even ... so maybe that doesn't fit.
Who?
I am not quite sure what your question refers to.
I have to know something...
are you Russell Kanning?
-
anarcho-capitalist in mind, living an unproductive and socialists life with no ambitions or enthusiams partly due to the fear of thugs enforceing arbitrary rules people decide for me.
-
anarcho-capitalist in mind, living an unproductive and socialists life with no ambitions or enthusiams partly due to the fear of thugs enforceing arbitrary rules people decide for me.
That pretty much sums up my life.
-
Who are the self-described libertarians that don't consider you a libertarian?
There have been lots of them. Since I don't use the term libertarian, I just say "well maybe you are right" and go with whatever term they like.
Pacifist doesn't seem quite right ... but maybe it is.
-
I have to know something...
are you Russell Kanning?
Sure ..... I think I am the only one person named that in the world. :)
Are you Johnny Depp playing that guy in fear and loathing in las vegas? 8)
-
I have to know something...
are you Russell Kanning?
Sure ..... I think I am the only one person named that in the world. :)
Are you Johnny Depp playing that guy in fear and loathing in las vegas? 8)
Oh my sweet baby Jesus. Russell...Kanning...
Nuh uh.
NUH UH.
And yes I'm Johnny Depp.