That darn 47%

Perspectives on our world and our universe, how it works, what is happening, and why it happens. Whether by a hidden hand or natural laws, we come together to hash it out, and perhaps provide a little bit of education and enlightenment for others. This is a place for civil discussion. Please keep it that way.
Forum rules
1) Remain civil. Respect others' rights to their viewpoints, even if you believe them to be completely wrong.
2) Sourcing your information is highly recommended. Plagiarism will get you banned.
3) Please create a new thread for a new topic, even if you think it might not get a lot of responses. Do not create mega-threads.
4) If you think the subject of a thread is not important enough to merit a post, simply avoid posting in it. If enough people agree, it will fall off the page soon enough.
User avatar
The Cid
Redshirt
Posts: 7150
Joined: Fri Nov 05, 2004 12:23 pm
Real Name: Tim Williams
Gender: Male
Location: The Suncoast

Re: That darn 47%

Post by The Cid » Tue Sep 25, 2012 4:18 pm

Arres wrote:I'm a Libertarian leaning registered Republican. I'm sick of the Republican party fielding candidates that don't represent me in order to pander to a vocal part of the base that believes in the restriction of the rights of others so I'm not going to vote for the candidate-bot they have put forward. I would prefer to end up with "the other guy" than support my party in it's current behavior.
Suggestion: Change your party designation. Better yet, don't sign up with a different one either. Just go independent. The Republican Party has demonstrated that they are always going to pander to the moral crusaders and busybodies.

Political parties aren't accountable to anybody for anything. They're run by unelected officials, meaning that it's entirely likely that every Republican you'll ever meet combines to have no say whatsoever in who sets the tone for their chosen political designation. Likewise, the Democrats take marching orders from a man who they rejected soundly when he tried to attain a presidential nomination in Howard Dean. These people have extreme amounts of power and are accountable to nobody.
Arres wrote:You would be surprised (actually, probably not) at how some of my R friends have taken my decision.
Honestly, I didn't mean to come across as attacking your personal position. It's a secret ballot, after all, and therefore none of my business who you vote for, why, or whether you give a shit about the barely-informed opinions of a marketing guy/sportswriter with a teacher's license who lives thousands of miles away from where you live.

For my part, it doesn't matter who I vote for in the presidential election. Unless I vote the same way as the rest of my neighbors, my vote will actually be discarded as meaningless and irrelevant. So really, I don't get a vote in that election. My votes will only "count" in terms of ballot questions, local elections, and a Senate race. Honestly, I'm more invested in those than I am in the presidential race for that reason. Nobody cares who I vote for for president, because I may as well be participating in a mock election at that point.

Oh, and you think your Republican friends dislike your decision? I'm a Libertarian in Massachusetts. So much as telling people that tends to piss them off point blank before I explain a thing about my positions.
Image
Hirschof wrote:I'm waiting for day you people start thinking with portals.

User avatar
Deacon
Shining Adonis
Posts: 44205
Joined: Wed Jul 30, 2003 3:00 pm
Gender: Male
Location: Lakehills, TX

Re: That darn 47%

Post by Deacon » Tue Sep 25, 2012 6:38 pm

I think the main problem in this world as a whole is that there are people who genuinely believe in the inherent goodness of humanity, that "evil" is never a cause, only an effect, that humans are pure as the driven snow unless corrupted by something that's already tainted. It's not true. Humans have the capacity both for good and for evil, some more so than others on both ends of that scale. In the end, we're competitive animals who've only recently emerged from small tribal groups and agreed on broader terms of "civilization" drawn along cultural lines. We're still those monkey-brained tribal animals; the good we're able to achieve is at the local tribal level (family, friends, local homeless people or whatever) while the evil we're able to achieve is both local and global.

People are selfish. People lie. These are not learned behaviors but instinctual reactions burned deeply and spread widely throughout our DNA. Nor are these unique attributes in the animal kingdom. Nature, people, drives us. Nurture is what keeps the facade of civility going until the going gets tough.
collegestudent22 wrote:without a legitimized coercive power to tax to obtain revenue, it is impossible for a private force to become a state - only a criminal gang, to be shortly dealt with by other private police forces and individuals defending themselves, if not broken up into small groups of thugs by nature of the system.
I think the problem you have there is the same problem you have on the extreme opposite end with communism. It's fine in theory, but the real world doesn't bear out those results. If that were true, it wouldn't have taken decades of dedicated federal law enforcement efforts to minimize/eliminate the mob. It never would've gotten that far. The people being taken advantage of would've fought back, defeated all the crime syndicates and so forth, and badabing badaboom, fuhgeddaboudit... Instead, humans are fearful, small-minded, short-sighted, and pain-averse.

Arres wrote:I'm sick of the [politicians] ... that believe in the restriction of the rights of others so I'm not going to vote for the candidate-bot they have put forward. I would prefer to end up with [Uberdemocrats].
I hear you, and I understand your frustration. The only problem I have is you're basically saying that you're tired of your tabby cat scratching you, so you're going to buy a tiger. Both the Republicans and Democrats have a platform that revolves around telling you how to live your life, how you're allowed to live your life, and how much of Other People's Money they'll give you to vote for them. The difference is 1) Republicans generally want to control your social life whereas Democrats want to control your entire life and 2) Republicans generously enable corporations and wealthy individuals in public while Democrats generously enable the inevitably/perpetually broke in public while generously enabling corporations and wealthy individuals in private. It's not that the Democrats are so much worse, necessarily, just that they pile on more of the same bad.

Yes, I chose the word "enable" on purpose. Note that the generosity is with Other People's Money taken at gunpoint, the easiest, shallowest, and most disastrous form of generosity. I think half the vitriol we associate with politics today isn't due to stupid social issues but stems instead from a much deeper well of resentment built up against "the other side" for perceived wrongs. If you've managed to make yourself successful in life, you resent those who come by and help themselves to what you've earned, laughing and flipping you off as they walk away with their bag overflowing. If you've managed to stay broke and unproductive, you resent those who want to know why you expect them to pay your bills for you and keep you in nice things (especially compared to most of the rest of world other than maybe western Europe), like some sort of sugar daddy shake down.

The only problem I have with any of that is we've created a societal structure that perpetuates and even celebrates continued cultural failure, primarily with the prominent minority groups. That's really the core of why I can't get behind the Democrats. Much of the social bullshit has sloughed off over the years, and it's just down to the twisted relationship they have with their constituents and how that relationship affects me beyond the greater problem of societal decay and foundational erosion. The Democrat platform is one designed to enable bottom feeders and to keep them dependent on them, like a 3rd world pimp importing sex slaves from his home country and keeping them addicted to drugs so they can't leave him. The difference is that at least there are some Democrats who are being enablers through good intentions.
The follies which a man regrets the most in his life are those which he didn't commit when he had the opportunity. - Helen Rowland, A Guide to Men, 1922

User avatar
collegestudent22
Redshirt
Posts: 6886
Joined: Fri Jun 08, 2007 10:02 am
Gender: Male
Location: Gallifrey

Re: That darn 47%

Post by collegestudent22 » Tue Sep 25, 2012 10:25 pm

Deacon wrote:I think the problem you have there is the same problem you have on the extreme opposite end with communism. It's fine in theory, but the real world doesn't bear out those results.
Well, except that communism is self-contradictory, even in theory. And the real world has borne it out in practice for longer than the US has even existed.

Deacon wrote:If that were true, it wouldn't have taken decades of dedicated federal law enforcement efforts to minimize/eliminate the mob. It never would've gotten that far.
It got that far for two reasons.

A) Government is a monopoly on providing protection against criminals. Meaning it will cost more, and be of lower quality, than in a competitive system. There is every incentive to make it cost as much as possible (to pad the government bureaus with highly-paid workers), while providing as little service as possible. (See: disarming the public, criminalizing self-defense, wasting resources on non-violent "offenders", etc.) That's made even worse by government unions, and the ability to obtain revenue by force (eliminating even the "forget it, I'll do it myself" option).

B) While the law enforcement efforts are sub-par, the government's economic policies are practically designed to protect and bolster the power of organized criminals. Smuggling against prohibition, in particular, allows for organizations like the mob and drug cartels to obtain a source of voluntary revenue - one that doesn't exist without prohibition, as peaceful competition demolishes the violent cartels. Every time the government forbids some voluntary trade, they give power to some not-so-savory types who are willing to provide the goods in question anyway.
Frédéric Bastiat wrote:And now that the legislators and do-gooders have so futilely inflicted so many systems upon society, may they finally end where they should have begun: May they reject all systems, and try liberty; for liberty is an acknowledgment of faith in God and His works.
Count Axel Oxenstierna wrote:Dost thou not know, my son, with how little wisdom the world is governed?

User avatar
Deacon
Shining Adonis
Posts: 44205
Joined: Wed Jul 30, 2003 3:00 pm
Gender: Male
Location: Lakehills, TX

Re: That darn 47%

Post by Deacon » Tue Sep 25, 2012 10:59 pm

collegestudent22 wrote:Well, except that communism is self-contradictory, even in theory.
Communism is not self-contradictory in theory, just wildly naive, optimistic, starry-eyed, whatever you want to call it. It fails utterly to take into account who and what humanity is and the wide variety of humans within that angry, buzzing sphere.
Yes, a handful of medieval Iceland settlers maintaining a decentralized confederacy proves anarchy would work well across the US like the banana fitting in an ape's hand proves Jehovah "intelligently" designed the heavens and the earth in 7 days about 6,000 years back.
Government is a monopoly on providing protection against criminals.
No, it's not. People who were scared could hire private security. Or they could just fight back themselves in self-defense, and the government is not likely to hassle them about it. But the dead mobster's associates may then come back and pay their family an unfriendly visit. Or for that matter, they could just call the government and rat them out. Plus, with government law enforcement there's at least a recognizable entity to turn to in case of emergency (as compared to trying to remember the number to all the various cab companies when you need a ride) and a justice system and court system that's generally agreed upon by the citizens it may one day judge. Hmmm...just like Iceland, actually.
While the law enforcement efforts are sub-par, the government's economic policies are practically designed to protect and bolster the power of organized criminals.
Oh hush. You can argue that if there's no law there can't be any crime, but it's a pretty poor and childish argument. It certainly doesn't mean there aren't still rapes, murders, thefts, robberies, dishonest dealing, etc. And the mob certainly smuggled stuff here and there, but that was never their main trade, and smuggling hasn't gone away with their demise.
The follies which a man regrets the most in his life are those which he didn't commit when he had the opportunity. - Helen Rowland, A Guide to Men, 1922

User avatar
The Cid
Redshirt
Posts: 7150
Joined: Fri Nov 05, 2004 12:23 pm
Real Name: Tim Williams
Gender: Male
Location: The Suncoast

Re: That darn 47%

Post by The Cid » Tue Sep 25, 2012 11:16 pm

Deacon wrote:Oh hush.
...But prohibition did help fuel the rise of organized crime in America. And similar policies continue to fund criminal organizations to this very day. I didn't know this was something other than fact. Am I somehow being misled?
Deacon wrote:It fails utterly to take into account who and what humanity is and the wide variety of humans within that angry, buzzing sphere.
Don't all governments do that, being that minimal government has never really been attempted in modern society and all governments are comprised of human beings?
Deacon wrote:You can argue that if there's no law there can't be any crime, but it's a pretty poor and childish argument.
If there were fewer laws, fewer people would have to act like criminals to get around them. In theory, anyway.
Image
Hirschof wrote:I'm waiting for day you people start thinking with portals.

User avatar
collegestudent22
Redshirt
Posts: 6886
Joined: Fri Jun 08, 2007 10:02 am
Gender: Male
Location: Gallifrey

Re: That darn 47%

Post by collegestudent22 » Wed Sep 26, 2012 3:54 am

Deacon wrote:
collegestudent22 wrote:Well, except that communism is self-contradictory, even in theory.
Communism is not self-contradictory in theory, just wildly naive, optimistic, starry-eyed, whatever you want to call it.
Communism postulates that no state will exist, yet requires that a state exist to be put into practice (that whole organization that claims to represent the community is nothing less than a democratic state). And a totalitarian one at that. Various forms of it have other, less blindingly obvious, contradictions, but the whole theory is incredibly contradictory.
Yes, a handful of medieval Iceland settlers maintaining a decentralized confederacy proves anarchy would work well across the US
You didn't say "across the US" (although there is evidence involving the US as well) - you said it wouldn't work at all in practice. And what occured in Iceland was not "decentralized confederacy", but anarchy, pure and simple. Private courts, private law. The system operated in such a way that to map it to the US would be to say, for instance, without moving I could exempt myself from Colorado law and switch to Texas law, or some other law, and the only instance in which I would be held to any law I did not submit to is if I have committed violence against another person or their property.

More accurately, under anarchy there would be no "Colorado law" or "Texas law", but there would be Catholic law, Muslim law, secular law, and so forth. Tied together by basic law that every one following those other laws agreed to - general prohibition of force and fraud against individuals. Or they could choose not to, and just be constrained to only their own property, and kept off of property of others that require them to agree to such basic prohibitions.
Government is a monopoly on providing protection against criminals.
No, it's not. People who were scared could hire private security. Or they could just fight back themselves in self-defense, and the government is not likely to hassle them about it.
Government can, and often does, hassle both private security and people that defend themselves. In any event, they claim the monopoly by abrogating veto power over the actions of others - the power to treat those aforementioned security and slef-defenders as criminals.

But I suppose I should be more explicit. The state can (and often does) force its subjects to seek protection only from it, and can force them to pay whatever it wants for these "services".

Also, if the people who are scared can hire private security or engage in self-defense, why do we need government to stop crime?
Plus, with government law enforcement there's at least a recognizable entity to turn to in case of emergency (as compared to trying to remember the number to all the various cab companies when you need a ride)
Oh, come now. Have you never got in a car wreck, or known someone who has? Do they have trouble remembering their insurance companies phone number?
a justice system and court system that's generally agreed upon by the citizens it may one day judge.
Which does not need to be a monopolistic one. This monopoly is in fact very dangerous, especially when it comes to settling disputes between the "citizens" and the owner of the court system itself. Or it ]It can just kill people... as a mistake. Murder someone? Have a shiny badge? Paid vacation time.
While the law enforcement efforts are sub-par, the government's economic policies are practically designed to protect and bolster the power of organized criminals.
Oh hush. You can argue that if there's no law there can't be any crime, but it's a pretty poor and childish argument.
Not my claim. First, because there would be law - it does not require monopolistic states to put forth law. The lex mercatoria is proof enough of that. Secondly, my claim is that with multiple competing agencies - likely some network of "crime insurance" companies, private police firms, and arbitration agencies - there is an incentive to actually prevent and fight crime.
Hans-Hermann Hoppe wrote:First, whereas a tax-funded monopolist will manifest a tendency to raise the cost and price of protection, private profit-loss insurance agencies strive to reduce the cost of protection and thus bring about falling prices. At the same time insurance agencies are more interested than anyone else in rising property values,
because this implies not only that their own property holdings appreciate but in particular that there will also be more of other people’s property for them to insure. In contrast, if the risk of aggression increases and property values fall, there is less value to be insured while the cost of protection and price of insurance rises, implying poor business conditions for an insurer. Consequently, insurance companies would be under permanent economic pressure to promote the former favorable and avert the latter unfavorable condition.
I suggest you read this article or these ones (both PDFs). At the very least, you will understand what it is you are criticizing instead of making such assumptions as "anarchy = no laws".
And the mob certainly smuggled stuff here and there, but that was never their main trade
The beginnings of the mob was with small extortion rackets in a few cities prior to Prohibition. The smuggling of alcohol was what allowed the mob families to gain and solidify criminal power in an organized fashion. While their power remained after Prohibition, this was because they had lots of money from bootlegging. Even still, defying state prohibitions remained a large part of Mafia operations through the running of illegal gambling, loan sharking, and drug smuggling. I'm not saying that's all the mob did, but they would have had significantly less power and success if those routes were unavailable to them. As Milton Friedman put it, "It is because it's prohibited. See, if you look at the drug war from a purely economic point of view, the role of the government is to protect the drug cartel. That's literally true." It's no different for any other criminal organization.
and smuggling hasn't gone away with their demise.
Sumggling is a symptom of state prohibition, not merely the mob. And the mob still exists, by the way.
Don't all governments do that, being that minimal government has never really been attempted in modern society and all governments are comprised of human beings?
Image

The whole idea is self-contradictory. Some people may steal, assault, and kill, so we need one large organization to steal, assault, and kill. And let's give it the authority to decide when this is justified all on its own, too. What could go wrong in having a property protection agency that expropriates, and a life protection agency that can kill without consequence?!
Frédéric Bastiat wrote:And now that the legislators and do-gooders have so futilely inflicted so many systems upon society, may they finally end where they should have begun: May they reject all systems, and try liberty; for liberty is an acknowledgment of faith in God and His works.
Count Axel Oxenstierna wrote:Dost thou not know, my son, with how little wisdom the world is governed?

User avatar
Deacon
Shining Adonis
Posts: 44205
Joined: Wed Jul 30, 2003 3:00 pm
Gender: Male
Location: Lakehills, TX

Re: That darn 47%

Post by Deacon » Wed Sep 26, 2012 6:15 am

The Cid wrote:...But prohibition did help fuel the rise of organized crime in America. And similar policies continue to fund criminal organizations to this very day. I didn't know this was something other than fact. Am I somehow being misled?
No, it very directly contributed to its rise (which may have been inevitable, but we'll never really know), but that is not a good argument for anarchy. And it's a terrible response to the claim that "the government's economic policies are practically designed to protect and bolster the power of organized criminals." While a byproduct of any control, it's certainly not designed or intended to do have that result.
Don't all governments do that, being that minimal government has never really been attempted in modern society and all governments are comprised of human beings?
Not all government seeks to homogenize the population to the same degree as with communism.
collegestudent22 wrote:Communism postulates that no state will exist, yet requires that a state exist to be put into practice (that whole organization that claims to represent the community is nothing less than a democratic state).
Maybe we're talking about a different communism? I'm not talking about small family groups living a subsistence life.
You didn't say "across the US" - you said it wouldn't work at all in practice.
You brought the US into it, you live in the US, and you are arguing for anarchy in the US, so I figured you maybe had the US in mind. Silly me. Either way, no, I didn't discount that in human history there may have been some example with no applicability to the modern world where humans may have lived successfully in anarchy. It turns out your link still had agreed upon laws, criminal and civil justice, and so on, so I'm not sure how well even that applies.
And what occured in Iceland was not "decentralized confederacy", but anarchy, pure and simple. Private courts, private law.
It sounds like you're playing fast and loose with semantics as the core of your argument, but out of curiosity what makes a democratically selected law and justice system a "private" court or "private" law as compared to every other such system?
Oh, come now. Have you never got in a car wreck, or known someone who has? Do they have trouble remembering their insurance companies phone number?
They do when they're unconscious and bleeding or whatever other emergency, where 911 gets someone on the phone who can rally the publicly funded troops to come to your aid or the aid of others.
my claim is that with multiple competing agencies - likely some network of "crime insurance" companies, private police firms, and arbitration agencies - there is an incentive to actually prevent and fight crime.
Heh, OK, and what if I don't want to pay but my neighbor does? More importantly, whom do I call if some private security firm is dirty? Another one and hope they fight out a turf war on my lawn?
The follies which a man regrets the most in his life are those which he didn't commit when he had the opportunity. - Helen Rowland, A Guide to Men, 1922

User avatar
collegestudent22
Redshirt
Posts: 6886
Joined: Fri Jun 08, 2007 10:02 am
Gender: Male
Location: Gallifrey

Re: That darn 47%

Post by collegestudent22 » Wed Sep 26, 2012 1:35 pm

Deacon wrote:
The Cid wrote:...But prohibition did help fuel the rise of organized crime in America. And similar policies continue to fund criminal organizations to this very day. I didn't know this was something other than fact. Am I somehow being misled?
No, it very directly contributed to its rise (which may have been inevitable, but we'll never really know), but that is not a good argument for anarchy. And it's a terrible response to the claim that "the government's economic policies are practically designed to protect and bolster the power of organized criminals." While a byproduct of any control, it's certainly not designed or intended to do have that result.
It has that result, it is known to have that result, and they continue to do it. Oh, and such control over peaceful interactions like trade wouldn't exist without government. So... how is it not a bullet point in favor of anarchy to point out that organized crime would, at the very least, have less power without the prohibitions of the state?
collegestudent22 wrote:Communism postulates that no state will exist, yet requires that a state exist to be put into practice (that whole organization that claims to represent the community is nothing less than a democratic state).
Maybe we're talking about a different communism? I'm not talking about small family groups living a subsistence life.
Marxism postulates, absurdly, that the state would be eliminated by communism. How much Marx have you actually read?
It turns out your link still had agreed upon laws, criminal and civil justice, and so on, so I'm not sure how well even that applies.
Anarcho-capitalism does not seek to eliminate laws and justice. Anarchy does not mean chaos, here. It means no state: defined as a compulsory territorial monopolist of ultimate decision-making in arbitration and jurisdiction. Which, of course, means it has the power to unilaterally decide what it charges for that "service".

Private law and private defense is what is sought. I don't like Police A, I stop paying them, and go to Police B, instead. I don't like following Christian law, I choose some secular law, instead. Conflicts are sorted out in private arbitration agencies chosen by mutual agreement, instead of monopolistic state courts. And so on.
out of curiosity what makes a democratically selected law and justice system a "private" court or "private" law as compared to every other such system?
Read the article again. The courts and law system was not democratically selected, but market selected. Individuals picked for themselves, not through a democracy.
Oh, come now. Have you never got in a car wreck, or known someone who has? Do they have trouble remembering their insurance companies phone number?
They do when they're unconscious and bleeding or whatever other emergency, where 911 gets someone on the phone who can rally the publicly funded troops to come to your aid or the aid of others.
This is a trivial objection. For one, smartphones can remember the number for you. For another, there are multitudes of three digit numbers that could be used for such a thing, if not for the state's interference. Thirdly, there is no reason to assume that people cannot form a mutually used switchboard system that could take "911" or "999" calls and redirect them to the appropriate agency based on which number is incoming.
my claim is that with multiple competing agencies - likely some network of "crime insurance" companies, private police firms, and arbitration agencies - there is an incentive to actually prevent and fight crime.
Heh, OK, and what if I don't want to pay but my neighbor does?
You aren't allowed on other people's property, as they require an agreement that you will not harm them, and if you do you have agreed to procedures to sort it out. Basically, if you don't want to pay, and your neighbor does, your neighbor is paying, in part, to keep you off his property. Oh, and if you don't pay for some crime protection, then good luck if someone commits a crime against you - it will be like if your house burns down and you forgot to get fire insurance.
More importantly, whom do I call if some private security firm is dirty? Another one and hope they fight out a turf war on my lawn?
You could just call the media, or post it online to some public forums. The dirty firm still requires money to conduct its operations and hire people, etc., and thus still requires willing customers. You could call another security firm, but even there it would likely spread to multiple firms against the one - a large enough force to get them to stop without any actual fighting. Such a dirty firm would make the others look poor by implication, and by increasing crime in the area, and thus worsen their business climate.

What do you do if the cops are dirty now? Honestly, that happens all the time, and nothing can really be done about it. The cops can murder someone in the wrong house ("a mistake") without consequence. They can use money they forcibly extract from the public to violently arrest and cage peaceful people smoking weed or selling raw milk. (I don't think anyone would voluntarily pay for that in large enough quantities for it to happen otherwise.) And so on, with state privilege for such people. The state system is fundamentally "dirty", simply because it is the epitome of a protection racket. I'm not sure how strong an argument of "a protection racket could emerge under anarchy, and be difficult to deal with" is, when that chance is far less than the guarantee of it in the embodiment of the state.
Frédéric Bastiat wrote:And now that the legislators and do-gooders have so futilely inflicted so many systems upon society, may they finally end where they should have begun: May they reject all systems, and try liberty; for liberty is an acknowledgment of faith in God and His works.
Count Axel Oxenstierna wrote:Dost thou not know, my son, with how little wisdom the world is governed?

User avatar
Deacon
Shining Adonis
Posts: 44205
Joined: Wed Jul 30, 2003 3:00 pm
Gender: Male
Location: Lakehills, TX

Re: That darn 47%

Post by Deacon » Wed Sep 26, 2012 2:42 pm

collegestudent22 wrote:Anarcho-capitalism does not seek to eliminate laws and justice. Anarchy does not mean chaos, here. It means no state: defined as a compulsory territorial monopolist of ultimate decision-making in arbitration and jurisdiction.
Anarcho-capitalism seeks to privatize the entire government from criminal courts to police, which seems silly to me, but whatever. Regardless, you cannot try to make such a substantial shift to your definition of anarchy such that no one else is talking about the same thing you are. Anarchy is not the absence of a state but the absence of law, period, every man for himself in every way, complete and utter freedom at the cost of complete and utter self reliance.
I don't like Police A, I stop paying them, and go to Police B, instead. I don't like following Christian law, I choose some secular law, instead.
If you get to pick and choose what law to follow, then there is no law. And does your neighbor pay for Police A while you pay for Police B? Who do you turn to when the two end up joining in cahoots? When they merge, and they're the only game in town and squash any attempted upstarts?
Read the article again. The courts and law system was not democratically selected, but market selected. Individuals picked for themselves, not through a democracy.
No, there was a community court which had a procedure where both sides picked half the jurors. Meting justice was not a business transaction.
This is a trivial objection. For one, smartphones can remember the number for you. For another, there are multitudes of three digit numbers that could be used for such a thing, if not for the state's interference. Thirdly, there is no reason to assume that people cannot form a mutually used switchboard system that could take "911" or "999" calls and redirect them to the appropriate agency based on which number is incoming.
It is not a trivial objection. Smartphones are a VERY RECENT invention, are not universal, and should not be you only way to contact emergency services. And what happens when the "private" switchboard routes my call to a company I don't like or that does a bad job or whatever else? I am still stuck with their bill? Why would they not gouge me?
You aren't allowed on other people's property, as they require an agreement that you will not harm them, and if you do you have agreed to procedures to sort it out.
I have no interest in working out contracts with every person I leave near or interact with in small ways on a daily basis. Your vision should be renamed to attorey-capitalism.
Basically, if you don't want to pay, and your neighbor does, your neighbor is paying, in part, to keep you off his property.
Interesting. So even though we have no dispute, he will hire a private security force to come and beat me with sticks if I put a foot over onto his property line? Sounds like an ideal neighborhood. I thought he was hiring private security guards that have no authority to intervene unless I decide to grant it because they're not the police, unless they're forcing me to accept their authority at gunpoint.
Oh, and if you don't pay for some crime protection, then good luck if someone commits a crime against you - it will be like if your house burns down and you forgot to get fire insurance.
Wait, I thought we were talking about preventing crime, not allowing crime to run rampant and just filing lots of insurance claims after the fact. attorney-insurance-capitalism?
You could just call the media, or post it online to some public forums. The dirty firm still requires money to conduct its operations and hire people, etc., and thus still requires willing customers. You could call another security firm, but even there it would likely spread to multiple firms against the one - a large enough force to get them to stop without any actual fighting. Such a dirty firm would make the others look poor by implication, and by increasing crime in the area, and thus worsen their business climate.
You are the most extremely optimistic anarchist I've ever even heard of, that you have such faith in not only humanity as a whole but individuals themselves who are struggling on a daily basis to navigate the labyrinth of unverifiable authorities and numerous contracts with no force to them unless mutually agreed on a later date at a private company paid out of pocket (unless you're broke by this point, which means you're SOL), and if there's anything left of this person they will spend their time not scratching for survival and building up their arsenal but instead studying the local bulletin boards to see if there's a flyer about some random crazy person's accusations against one of the dozens of private security guard companies being bought out (which is kind of the definition of private security) and then making selfless choices to punish them in tiny ways thinking maybe they'll get the point eventually.

Hell, the NFL won't even put real refs back in the game after substantial criticism from the media, media that reaches people due to standards and controls put in place by government.
What do you do if the cops are dirty now? Honestly, that happens all the time, and nothing can really be done about it.
That's absolutely no true, that nothing can be done about it or that it happens "all the time" for that matter. What happens exactly depends on at what level the corruption is taking place. A good friend of mine was a sheriff's deputy in south Texas and the FBI ended up bringing most of his department down. They tried to nail my friend, too, but he was clean, and they couldn't find anything on him.
The cops can murder someone in the wrong house ("a mistake") without consequence. They can use money they forcibly extract from the public to violently arrest and cage peaceful people smoking weed or selling raw milk.
Are you saying a cop can go into the house of someone he wants to kill, shoot them dead, and then say in his report, "Oops!" without consequence? Really? They can't arrest people, peaceful or otherwise, who are smoking weed or selling raw milk if we don't make those things illegal. Otherwise any private force could do the same. I'm not sure what you mean by "violently arrest" unless you're referring to some sort of beating of someone who was peacefully resisting, sitting still while being beaten mercilessly, which I agree happens continually, to the point where I saw several such incidents just this morning on my way to work.
The state system is fundamentally "dirty", simply because it is the epitome of a protection racket.
No, it's not, because the state is not starting out by threatening to beat you and burn your building to the ground unless you pay up. Taxes and the mafia are close enough to honestly confuse only at a 50,000 foot view.
The follies which a man regrets the most in his life are those which he didn't commit when he had the opportunity. - Helen Rowland, A Guide to Men, 1922

User avatar
The Cid
Redshirt
Posts: 7150
Joined: Fri Nov 05, 2004 12:23 pm
Real Name: Tim Williams
Gender: Male
Location: The Suncoast

Re: That darn 47%

Post by The Cid » Wed Sep 26, 2012 2:59 pm

Deacon wrote:No, it very directly contributed to its rise (which may have been inevitable, but we'll never really know), but that is not a good argument for anarchy. And it's a terrible response to the claim that "the government's economic policies are practically designed to protect and bolster the power of organized criminals."
That wasn't my claim, though. That was Student's claim. He's the anarchist.

To me, it's an argument for "let's stop instituting laws and policies based on what people Ought and Oughtn't Do." Because they'll do it anyway. Make alcohol illegal, and some criminal organization will fill that hole in the market at a healthy profit that they can use to further their criminal activities. Or gambling. Or drugs. What those policies accomplish involves wasting a lot of tax money that could (theoretically) go back into the pockets of taxpayers instead and let's not forget how dangerous law enforcement is. Especially when that law enforcement is being asked to confront a group who is well-funded and heavily-armed thanks in large part to policies that create market discrepancies for that group to fill.
Deacon wrote:Not all government seeks to homogenize the population to the same degree as with communism.
But they are full of people, and those people are corruptible. It does seem like a minimal government (again, I'm not going all the way to zero) might struggle to gain the kind of unchecked power that could cause major problems. It's a little like de-clawing a cat: with no room for moral crusader legislation in the pursuit of an American utopia that never existed outside of Leave it to Beaver, or head-in-the-clouds, unrealistic optimism without any concept of cost or the possibility of failure or corruption (yes this is me trying to be nice to both major parties), it seems like there would be a lot less to worry about. But how could I know that, when nobody's ever really given it a shot?
Image
Hirschof wrote:I'm waiting for day you people start thinking with portals.

User avatar
Deacon
Shining Adonis
Posts: 44205
Joined: Wed Jul 30, 2003 3:00 pm
Gender: Male
Location: Lakehills, TX

Re: That darn 47%

Post by Deacon » Wed Sep 26, 2012 6:18 pm

The Cid wrote:What those policies accomplish involves wasting a lot of tax money that could (theoretically) go back into the pockets of taxpayers instead
Just for reference, I don't actually disagree with you on that, mostly.
Deacon wrote:But they are full of people, and those people are corruptible. It does seem like a minimal government (again, I'm not going all the way to zero) might struggle to gain the kind of unchecked power that could cause major problems. It's a little like de-clawing a cat: with no room for moral crusader legislation in the pursuit of an American utopia that never existed outside of Leave it to Beaver, or head-in-the-clouds, unrealistic optimism without any concept of cost or the possibility of failure or corruption (yes this is me trying to be nice to both major parties), it seems like there would be a lot less to worry about. But how could I know that, when nobody's ever really given it a shot?
I remain in full agreement that this is definitely a better direction to go in. Unfortunately, as you point out, it hasn't really been tried in the modern western world (to my knowledge), so we only have historical models to look at. Today's world is one of strong and extensive centralized governments, either mostly well-intentioned but bumbling and continually making things worse they more they get involved or evil dictatorships. There's some cross-over, granted, but they all come together to be ineffectual in the UN while seeking more and more power to enable them to be more effectual, to put force behind their decrees. It's really hard to rein in that momentum...

Unfortunately, the UN has for a long time now continually sought to find ways to decrease freedom (e.g. civilian arms ban) rather than to secure it. I don't understand how people think that's OK.
The follies which a man regrets the most in his life are those which he didn't commit when he had the opportunity. - Helen Rowland, A Guide to Men, 1922

User avatar
collegestudent22
Redshirt
Posts: 6886
Joined: Fri Jun 08, 2007 10:02 am
Gender: Male
Location: Gallifrey

Re: That darn 47%

Post by collegestudent22 » Thu Sep 27, 2012 6:35 am

Deacon wrote:Anarchy is not the absence of a state but the absence of law, period, every man for himself in every way, complete and utter freedom at the cost of complete and utter self reliance.
Anarchism is, according to Merriam-Webster, "a political theory holding all forms of governmental authority to be unnecessary and undesirable and advocating a society based on voluntary cooperation and free association of individuals and groups". There is nothing in there that is anti-law (law is not government authority), nor demanding complete self reliance.
If you get to pick and choose what law to follow, then there is no law.
I suppose the lex mercatoria doesn't exist then, as you can choose not to follow it (and be ostracized as a result)? International trade is a myth?

You ignore the fact that, while intra-law disputes would likely be sorted out by the single agency, those agencies would have agreements with others for inter-law disputes to facilitate arbitration there as well. Your arguments might be a little more convincing if you would read any of the material I have cited, so that your arguments would not already be rejected.
And does your neighbor pay for Police A while you pay for Police B?
If that is what you chose to do as individuals.
Who do you turn to when the two end up joining in cahoots? When they merge, and they're the only game in town and squash any attempted upstarts?
If you do not approve of a merger, you turn to the ability to stop paying them and utterly ignore their dictates. Without a large sum of revenue, they cannot "squash attempted upstarts". Even dictators are upheld by public opinion, and there is no perceived legitimacy factor involved here.
Read the article again. The courts and law system was not democratically selected, but market selected. Individuals picked for themselves, not through a democracy.
No, there was a community court which had a procedure where both sides picked half the jurors. Meting justice was not a business transaction.
Still not democratic, any more than a private arbitration is now, where both sides agree to the terms. Because it was, in effect, a private arbitration in private courts.
Smartphones are a VERY RECENT invention, are not universal,
A basic cell phone can do the same job, and those are near universal - even in Somalia:
BBC wrote:Somali telecoms expert Ahmed Farah says the first mobile telephone mast went up in Somalia in 1994, and now someone can make a mobile call from anywhere in the country.

There are nine networks to choose from and they offer services from texting to mobile internet access.
and should not be you only way to contact emergency services.
Unless you are not using a phone, but something like smoke signals or some bullshit, numbers can be remembered in the phone's memory, if nowhere else.
And what happens when the "private" switchboard routes my call to a company I don't like or that does a bad job or whatever else? I am still stuck with their bill? Why would they not gouge me?
Why is private in quotes? And, once again, your strongest objection is basically "it could be just like now" - to which I say, if that is the case, then we have literally nothing to lose.

Of course, this objection ignores the fact that said switchboard/redirection company would also be a competitive marketplace entity. If they do not redirect your call to the agency you provide them with, there is no reason you would have to pay, and every reason that you would not, just as if a restaurant gives you the wrong dish and you leave in protest. If one company fails to provide efficient and correct emergency connections, it would not last long in any market for that service. Some other company picks a different three digit emergency number, and you call them if necessary instead, and spread the word to others to do the same.
You aren't allowed on other people's property, as they require an agreement that you will not harm them, and if you do you have agreed to procedures to sort it out.
I have no interest in working out contracts with every person I leave near or interact with in small ways on a daily basis. Your vision should be renamed to attorey-capitalism.
You agree to such contracts every time you go on to another's property now. Every market transaction is also an implicit contract. There is no need for explicit, highly detailed contracts and attorneys.
Basically, if you don't want to pay, and your neighbor does, your neighbor is paying, in part, to keep you off his property.
Interesting. So even though we have no dispute, he will hire a private security force to come and beat me with sticks if I put a foot over onto his property line?
If you go on his property against his will, you are no longer in a situation of "no dispute". You are violating his property. And he has every right to demand that people that visit his property have agreed
I thought he was hiring private security guards that have no authority to intervene unless I decide to grant it because they're not the police, unless they're forcing me to accept their authority at gunpoint.
They have no authority over you on your own property.
Oh, and if you don't pay for some crime protection, then good luck if someone commits a crime against you - it will be like if your house burns down and you forgot to get fire insurance.
Wait, I thought we were talking about preventing crime, not allowing crime to run rampant and just filing lots of insurance claims after the fact.
Crime prevention is incentivized by these insurance companies because they don't want to pay out claims. Further, private security can be obtained directly as well. But the core of the stateless justice system is that insurers indemnify victims of crime if the criminal is not caught and brought to justice. Thus, they seek to both prevent crime (to avoid the paperwork and the loss of money) and to catch criminals quickly (to, again, avoid payouts).
You are the most extremely optimistic anarchist I've ever even heard of
Not really. I don't claim it would be perfect. Only that it would start from a significantly more moral position (institutionalized theft and other aggressive violence against peaceful individuals is non-existent), allow for significantly more alternative choices and recourse, and that the worst case is not only unlikely, but simply a reversion to what currently exists.
individuals themselves who are struggling on a daily basis
They struggle now because of state rules that take their money to waste on foreign wars, uneconomic development, and endlessly inflating bureaucracy. Because of the state's inflation of the money supply, reducing the value of what little can be saved or earned in a fixed income. The state causes so much suffering, that to claim that getting rid of it will cause people to start from a lower position is a little absurd.
unless you're broke by this point, which means you're SOL
This is a fallacy. The market provides goods and services cheaper and better than any government can. This same argument is used by socialists standing in bread lines: "In the West, I hear the government doesn't even provide bread!"
Hell, the NFL won't even put real refs back in the game after substantial criticism from the media, media that reaches people due to standards and controls put in place by government.
The media does not reach people "due to standards and controls put in place by government". If anything, the media itself is corrupt because of its reliance on government. (Do you not see the political blinders on all the news networks?) It is the Internet - kept free by market forces - that provides actual news to people, from which they make their decisions.

And the NFL referee situation is deeply manipulated by state rules, mainly rules regarding unions and the artificial NFL monopoly through grants of subsidies for stadiums and the like. Even were it not, no one is criticizing the NFL on grounds that the "replacement refs" are doing anything violent or aggressive against the consumer, or even substantially hurting the enjoyment of the game minus a few bad calls. If people don't like the refs actions enough to actually stop watching, the fallout would be quick.
What do you do if the cops are dirty now? Honestly, that happens all the time, and nothing can really be done about it.
That's absolutely no true, that nothing can be done about it or that it happens "all the time" for that matter. What happens exactly depends on at what level the corruption is taking place.
It happens at all levels. It is implicit in the nature of compulsory monopoly to provide an inferior, and often harmful, service. This is the same reason that the Soviet Union couldn't provide a matching number of left and right shoes.
The cops can murder someone in the wrong house ("a mistake") without consequence. They can use money they forcibly extract from the public to violently arrest and cage peaceful people smoking weed or selling raw milk.
Are you saying a cop can go into the house of someone he wants to kill, shoot them dead, and then say in his report, "Oops!" without consequence? Really?
Yes, as long as he has some "legitimate" action that he was supposedly attempting to do, and it was "just a mistake". Or perhaps he shoots a bunch of bystanders to a shooting at the Empire State Building because he doesn't know how to aim his gun properly. This sort of thing happens all the time, often with "paid administrative leave" until the thing blows over in the 24 hour news cycle.
They can't arrest people, peaceful or otherwise, who are smoking weed or selling raw milk if we don't make those things illegal.
It matters whether you are a member of the "we", or the "people". Let me ask, if "we" made owning a truck illegal, would you follow that law? If "we" made owning a gun illegal, and the Court invalidated the Second Amendment's application (as it has done with so many others), would you follow that law? At what point would the state have gone too far? Because it will, sooner or later, cross that line. Such is the nature of an organization that is given such power as to decide even what the limits of its power are.
I'm not sure what you mean by "violently arrest" unless you're referring to some sort of beating of someone who was peacefully resisting, sitting still while being beaten mercilessly, which I agree happens continually, to the point where I saw several such incidents just this morning on my way to work.
The state system is fundamentally "dirty", simply because it is the epitome of a protection racket.
No, it's not, because the state is not starting out by threatening to beat you and burn your building to the ground unless you pay up. Taxes and the mafia are close enough to honestly confuse only at a 50,000 foot view.
The state is threatening, constantly, to take my property even if I do pay up. It threatens to lock me in a cage if I don't, and to beat or even kill me if I resist this kidnapping. No, they aren't threatening to burn my building down specifically - they don't have to when they can just say they want to start a “comprehensive redevelopment plan", and give my property to someone else to build whatever they want on it. The specific threats are irrelevant - the system of threatening people who don't pay a unilaterally determined fee for what is called protection is a protection racket.
Frédéric Bastiat wrote:And now that the legislators and do-gooders have so futilely inflicted so many systems upon society, may they finally end where they should have begun: May they reject all systems, and try liberty; for liberty is an acknowledgment of faith in God and His works.
Count Axel Oxenstierna wrote:Dost thou not know, my son, with how little wisdom the world is governed?

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Common Crawl (Research) and 0 guests