ama gi:My idea of anarchy is basically a stateless direct democracy. Disputes (and crimes) are resolved by a trial-by-jury, without the need for "insurance companies", "PDAs", or a system of "private courts".
ama gi:With the jury trial system, nobody would need a preexisting contract with the court. The court would automatically have jurisdiction by nature of being a democratic institution.
ama gi:"Laws", if you want to call them that, would be basically be petitions written by anyone and signed by a large number of people. Once it had a million or so signatures, it would be legally binding in court (unless there was an opposing petition that had a greater number of signatures).
I'd take direct democracy over an-cap any day. An-caps seem to think that it's a good idea to have a hundred different PDAs and a hundred different courts with different law codes--and what could possibly go wrong?
I, for one, prefer not to take that chance.
"As long as there are sovereign nations possessing great power, war is inevitable."
E. R. Olovetto: bloom:You assume that they won't all become "rogue PDAs." Maybe they all will. All one needs to control people is an army. You think the directors of all those PDAs won't know that? Do you think that the people won't know that too? It is incredibly expensive to fund wars without some pedagogue politician preaching the dangers of the terr'ists and collecting the sheeps' loot.
bloom:You assume that they won't all become "rogue PDAs." Maybe they all will. All one needs to control people is an army. You think the directors of all those PDAs won't know that?
Do you think that the people won't know that too? It is incredibly expensive to fund wars without some pedagogue politician preaching the dangers of the terr'ists and collecting the sheeps' loot.
And give me a sound reason why this would never happen under PDAs.
E. R. Olovetto:All human action is based on speculation.
Ever more reason to base present choices upon small changes (Popper's thesis of piecemeal social engineering found in volume one of The Open Society and Its Enemies) rather than a complete rehaul of the entire system.
E. R. Olovetto:Is your personal preference for law based on a rational model or a purely arbitrary one?
Just because you don't like it does not mean that its completely arbitrary. Nor being completely based upon a notion of the superiority of systems that have survived historical evolution mean that such a system is "purely arbitrary".
E. R. Olovetto:There are things we can use logic to determine, with regard to punishment or reconciliation,
Punishments can never be determined through pure reason, they are empirical concepts.
E. R. Olovetto:We can't ever assign X years to a prison sentence, because the only proper use of imprisonment is to have the criminal repay/restore the victim.
How about keeping an individual out of society while not executing him.
Abstract liberty, like other mere abstractions, is not to be found.
- Edmund Burke
laminustacitus:If a man breaks into my house, and I call the police, they will bring him to justice. Your statement has just been falsified.
I was assaulted on July 11, 2006 by a man who grabbed me from behind, put a knife to my throat and demanded money. Fortunately, I was neither harmed nor had my money taken. Still, I called the police. No one was ever brought to justice--and the detective assigned to the case retired 3 weeks after he was assigned it!
Let's just say reality has falsified your claim, since it doesn't necessarily follow that reporting a crime to the police will result in justice.
Knight_of_BAAWA: ama gi:My idea of anarchy is basically a stateless direct democracy. Disputes (and crimes) are resolved by a trial-by-jury, without the need for "insurance companies", "PDAs", or a system of "private courts".Problem is that juries have to come from somewhere. Volunteers?
Of course.
And if nobody volunteers, offer wages. It's supply and demand, baby.
Knight_of_BAAWA: You do realize that you're proposing majority-rules, which has neither metaphysical nor epistemic grounding.
You do realize that you're proposing majority-rules, which has neither metaphysical nor epistemic grounding.
It has practical grounding. You either persuade the people to respect your property rights, or you have to be better armed than everybody else.
I prefer the former.
ama gi:I'd take direct democracy over an-cap any day. An-caps seem to think that it's a good idea to have a hundred different PDAs and a hundred different courts with different law codes--and what could possibly go wrong?
ama gi: E. R. Olovetto:I am not suggesting that anyone becomes an expert in law. I was asking you who you want deciding your fate.... an expert or Joe Public? Joe Public. Never does a day go by except some university-educated "expert" says something utterly moronic. What is even more shocking is that various proposals backed by "experts" (such as compulsory education, mandatory vaccinations, etc.) have proven failures, but people still refuse to abolish them because they are backed by. . . . experts! The expert-worship needs to stop. In a courtroom, you should a dozen middle-class working people in the jury box, and the experts on the witness stand, rather than vice versa.
E. R. Olovetto:I am not suggesting that anyone becomes an expert in law. I was asking you who you want deciding your fate.... an expert or Joe Public?
Joe Public.
Never does a day go by except some university-educated "expert" says something utterly moronic. What is even more shocking is that various proposals backed by "experts" (such as compulsory education, mandatory vaccinations, etc.) have proven failures, but people still refuse to abolish them because they are backed by. . . . experts!
The expert-worship needs to stop. In a courtroom, you should a dozen middle-class working people in the jury box, and the experts on the witness stand, rather than vice versa.
Sorry, but this is ridiculous, and you are misinterpreting what I am saying. We might assign the word "expert" because a company using whatever process and people becomes prevalent. This economic success is vaguely "democratic". I never said that I expect jury trials with members of the public to be useless, or that multiple judges may sit at a trial.
When I need a plumber, I am at least going to call someone from the plumber section of the yellow pages, not thumb through the white pages indiscriminately.
Democracy means the opportunity to be everyone's slave.—Karl Kraus.
Knight_of_BAAWA:Problem is that juries have to come from somewhere. Volunteers?
ama gi:Of course. And if nobody volunteers, offer wages.
And if nobody volunteers, offer wages.
Knight_of_BAAWA:You do realize that you're proposing majority-rules, which has neither metaphysical nor epistemic grounding.
ama gi:It has practical grounding.
wilderness: Yet the dividing line that Machiavelli never thinks about is: 'what do you want'. Machiavelli is thinking it all for you. He's decided men are fickle and greedy of gain. You can agree with that, so be it. But the dividing line is there are those that consent to people initiating physical aggression or thereby consent to greed, fickleness, and war (because NOT all people are that's a fact of the current market. Not all people commit crimes only the few actually commit crimes). Then there are those people that don't consent to initiated physical aggression, don't consent to greed, fickleness, and war. I consent/want peace, justice, and liberty. I don't consent to war, criminal activity, and being forced to do things I don't want to.
Yet the dividing line that Machiavelli never thinks about is: 'what do you want'. Machiavelli is thinking it all for you. He's decided men are fickle and greedy of gain. You can agree with that, so be it. But the dividing line is there are those that consent to people initiating physical aggression or thereby consent to greed, fickleness, and war (because NOT all people are that's a fact of the current market. Not all people commit crimes only the few actually commit crimes). Then there are those people that don't consent to initiated physical aggression, don't consent to greed, fickleness, and war.
I consent/want peace, justice, and liberty.
I don't consent to war, criminal activity, and being forced to do things I don't want to.
Honestly bro, if I thought that everyone was like you, I'd be all for anarcho-capitalism. But they're not. You know what I mean?
Of mankind, we may say in GENERAL (not everyone is as rational, logical and peaceloving as Wilderness) that they are fickle, hypocritical and greedy of gain.
You will be undone, Wilderness, by the people who are not like you.
ama gi:Citizens arrest. If somebody commits a crime, you either arrest them yourself, or hire somebody else to do it.
ama gi: I'd take direct democracy over an-cap any day. An-caps seem to think that it's a good idea to have a hundred different PDAs and a hundred different courts with different law codes--and what could possibly go wrong? I, for one, prefer not to take that chance.
Let's take you at your own word. You said law codes had validity when supported by "a million or so" subscriptions. With a world population approaching 7 billion people, how is legislation treated that is supported by, say, 5 million people, but rejected by the other 6,995 billion?And since I assume that your direct democracy will not be operating on a global scale, how are all the different nations/legislative groups going to reconcile their differences? Wouldn't that be chaos, even anarchy?But if a group of politicos manages to do that, why shouldn't a bunch of companies?
Juan: Nope. It's not impossible. The point is that IF people would support or tolerate that sort of thing THEN that's the kind of society you would have. If people don't stick to basic morality then you won't have a libertarian society. And IF you think that an abstraction like a 'minimal state' can turn people who are not libertarians into libertarians you are out touch with reality. IF people stick to libertarian principles then NO state is better and more workable than a 'minimal' state. And here's a bit of psychoanalizing for you. You are an amoralist so you think that all people are like you. But your assumption is unwarranted.
Nope. It's not impossible. The point is that IF people would support or tolerate that sort of thing THEN that's the kind of society you would have. If people don't stick to basic morality then you won't have a libertarian society. And IF you think that an abstraction like a 'minimal state' can turn people who are not libertarians into libertarians you are out touch with reality. IF people stick to libertarian principles then NO state is better and more workable than a 'minimal' state. And here's a bit of psychoanalizing for you. You are an amoralist so you think that all people are like you. But your assumption is unwarranted.
So, Juan, will people tolerate that sort of thing?
bloomj31: wilderness: Yet the dividing line that Machiavelli never thinks about is: 'what do you want'. Machiavelli is thinking it all for you. He's decided men are fickle and greedy of gain. You can agree with that, so be it. But the dividing line is there are those that consent to people initiating physical aggression or thereby consent to greed, fickleness, and war (because NOT all people are that's a fact of the current market. Not all people commit crimes only the few actually commit crimes). Then there are those people that don't consent to initiated physical aggression, don't consent to greed, fickleness, and war. I consent/want peace, justice, and liberty. I don't consent to war, criminal activity, and being forced to do things I don't want to. Honestly bro, if I thought that everyone was like you, I'd be all for anarcho-capitalism. But they're not. You know what I mean? Of mankind, we may say in GENERAL (not everyone is as rational, logical and peaceloving as Wilderness) that they are fickle, hypocritical and greedy of gain. You will be undone, Wilderness, by the people who are not like you.
Therefore, we need the state?
To paraphrase Marc Faber: We're all doomed, but that doesn't mean that we can't make money in the process. Rabbi Lapin: "Let's make bricks!" Stephan Kinsella: "Say you and I both want to make a German chocolate cake."
JB:So, Juan, will people tolerate that sort of thing?
February 17 - 1600 - Giordano Bruno is burnt alive by the catholic church. Aquinas : "much more reason is there for heretics, as soon as they are convicted of heresy, to be not only excommunicated but even put to death."
Daniel Muffinburg: Therefore, we need the state?
Yes, I think so. What do you think? Do you think you will be undone by those who are unlike you?
Juan: Am I omniscient or something ?
Am I omniscient or something ?
Well, what does your gut tell you?
Daniel Muffinburg:Therefore, we need the state?
bloomj31:Yes, I think so. What do you think? Do you think you will be undone by those who are unlike you?
Humans can do bad things, so we need a group of humans (who can do bad things) to rule over us via a monopoly?
Ummmm.....I'm not seeing an upside to that, nor am I seeing internal consistency. Y'might want to fix that.
Jacob:Of mankind, we may say in GENERAL (not everyone is as rational, logical and peaceloving as Wilderness) that they are fickle, hypocritical and greedy of gain.
Knight_of_BAAWA: Humans can do bad things, so we need a group of humans (who can do bad things) to rule over us via a monopoly? Ummmm.....I'm not seeing an upside to that, nor am I seeing internal consistency. Y'might want to fix that.
Well, as far as I can tell, it's worked out ok here in the US so far. What you're proposing sounds worse to me, so I am not an anarcho-capitalist.
The other thing to consider is that...technically no one has to convince the radical libertarians of anything. You're in the minority. I'm not trying to be a dick here, I'm just saying.
Juan, the problem isn't the system, it's humans. We're the problem. People want to blame systems. But humans came up with the systems. Humans operate them. They're just a byproduct of humanity. The problem with an-cap is that it's not made for humans, it's made for angels.
"But what is government itself, but the greatest of all reflections on human nature? If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary. In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself." - James Madison
Well, as far as I can tell, it's worked out ok here in the US so far.
lam:And give me a sound reason why this would never happen under PDAs.
It might. We're suggesting guidelines for what type of company might operate which we can call a legitimate Private Defense or Security Firm. Rogue groups of criminals can be called something different.
So, it isn't our fault that "this" is happening today, or that people like you support it whilst holding others to a higher standard... States are in essence rogue PDAs.
You didn't answer my question. I was rehashing something written by Mises here.
Why do you mention Popper in every other breath? Wasn't his thought more compatible with Kuhn's theory of revolutionary (vs. Toulmin's evolutionary) social change? See if you can find Margaret Masterman's critique of Kuhn, about how he uses the word "paradigm" in at least 21 different senses. There's no need to waste our time on these abstractions.
Anyhow, this had to do with whether you value any sort of coherency in a legal framework or want a purely arbitrary one like we have today. I really don't care what you have to say about Popper, only what we were actually discussing.
Civil law is arbitrary because it is arbitrary. Yes, once again it is completely arbitrary by its nature, not because "I don't like it". The second part is not a sentence and I don't know what you are babbling about.
Do you read what you respond to? I quite clearly did not say we were using "pure reason". If we could, maybe we would have little computers spitting out verdicts.
There are aspects of the process of assigning justifiable maximum punishments which are quite objective. Yes, there is some measure of apodeictic certainty we can get from an aprioristic legal model. This doesn't mean that you have to accept it, but in this case you can't coherently object to its method.
How about you stop responding with things that are unrelated to what I am saying. Ostracism is an option to execution, but I wasn't talking about either. That is for the victim and legal system to decide what is preferred and/or viable.
Juan, the problem isn't the system, it's humans. We're the problem. People want to blame systems. But humans came up with the systems. Humans operate them. They're just a byproduct of humanity.
Juan: Okay. So the current system, which you are complaining about, is the result of human action. It is what it is. Deal with it. I humbly think this is check-mate and you royally lost the game.
Okay. So the current system, which you are complaining about, is the result of human action. It is what it is. Deal with it. I humbly think this is check-mate and you royally lost the game.
I do deal with it, I just propose ways in which I think it could be done better. That's all.
To accept a part is not to accept the whole.
bloomj31: Daniel Muffinburg: Therefore, we need the state? Yes, I think so. What do you think? Do you think you will be undone by those who are unlike you?
I don't think rape will go away any time soon, so, should we legitimize that too?
I do deal with it, I just propose ways in which I think it could be done better.
Daniel Muffinburg: I don't think rape will go away any time soon, so, should we legitimize that too?
You're equivocating government with rape. That's a fun word game, but it's a word game nonetheless. I'm talking about government, not rape.
bloomj31: Knight_of_BAAWA: Humans can do bad things, so we need a group of humans (who can do bad things) to rule over us via a monopoly? Ummmm.....I'm not seeing an upside to that, nor am I seeing internal consistency. Y'might want to fix that. Well, as far as I can tell, it's worked out ok here in the US so far...
Well, as far as I can tell, it's worked out ok here in the US so far...
Evidence?
Juan: It can't be done better because people are what they are. Don't you see YOUR OWN POINT ?
It can't be done better because people are what they are. Don't you see YOUR OWN POINT ?
You're proposing radical changes that are outside the bounds of what is humanly possible, I am not. That was the point. Minimal government is not outside the realm of human capacity, anarcho-capitalism is.
Daniel Muffinburg: Evidence?
I mean we're not doing so bad. I don't think the sky is going to cave in anytime soon.
bloomj31: Daniel Muffinburg: I don't think rape will go away any time soon, so, should we legitimize that too? You're equivocating government with rape. That's a fun word game, but it's a word game nonetheless. I'm talking about government, not rape.
No, I'm not. I'm simply using your logic. Anyway, how about this: theft won't go away anytime soon, so, should we legitimize theft too?
bloomj31: Juan: It can't be done better because people are what they are. Don't you see YOUR OWN POINT ? You're proposing radical changes that are outside the bounds of what is humanly possible, I am not. That was the point. Minimal government is not outside the realm of human capacity, anarcho-capitalism is.
Oh god, it is like a time warp to 2 days ago.
Learn some history.
Daniel Muffinburg: No, I'm not. I'm simply using your logic. Anyway, how about this: theft won't go away anytime soon, so, should we legitimize theft too?
We already have.
Minimal government is not outside the realm of human capacity,
bloomj31: Daniel Muffinburg: Evidence? I mean we're not doing so bad. I don't think the sky is going to cave in anytime soon.
So the economic depression we're heading into, because of the state, is not so bad?
bloomj31: Daniel Muffinburg: No, I'm not. I'm simply using your logic. Anyway, how about this: theft won't go away anytime soon, so, should we legitimize theft too? We already have.
Then why do we need the state? For what purpose?
Look, I know there's no way in hell you guys are ever going to have your minds changed by talking on a forum.
Ultimately, your own lives will either confirm or deny your own philosophies. What I'm saying is that I understand people who can't accept an-cap. I knew I'd be attacked for saying that here. But I thought I'd throw in my two cents and I have.
we all understand them. so what if you understand them? is that worth brownie points?
Where there is no property there is no justice; a proposition as certain as any demonstration in Euclid
Fools! not to see that what they madly desire would be a calamity to them as no hands but their own could bring
Daniel Muffinburg: Then why do we need the state? For what purpose?
The amazing thing about humans is that they can be totally hypocritical without having everything unravel. So while the state has legitimized one form of theft, the state still protects people from other forms of it. It's an amazing thing.