Stranger: Power is the ability to injure without retaliation. You can eliminate power by giving everyone the means to retaliate with maximum force.
Power is the ability to injure without retaliation. You can eliminate power by giving everyone the means to retaliate with maximum force.
Why would the people in power allow that to happen?
bloomj31: Isn't that a nice idea. But their incentives is power. How do you deincentivize power?
Isn't that a nice idea. But their incentives is power. How do you deincentivize power?
Have government in the form of a firm instead of a state for starters.
Angurse:Have government in the form of a firm instead of a state for starters.
Or, how about no government at all. Let the people themselves act as legislators, cops, and judges in a direct democracy.
"As long as there are sovereign nations possessing great power, war is inevitable."
bloomj31:Why would the people in power allow that to happen?
At what point does it become trolling?
bloomj31: Stranger: Power is the ability to injure without retaliation. You can eliminate power by giving everyone the means to retaliate with maximum force. Why would the people in power allow that to happen?
Because they are destroying themselves in their greed and corruption.
The fallacies of intellectual communism, a compilation - On the nature of power
bloomj31:I'm saying there is no permanent solution. There will always be governments.
Alright, I'm done arguing about this for now. We shall see what happens, perhaps the an-cap people will be correct. I'm not betting on it though.
Knight_of_BAAWA:Eventually he'll die, as we all do. If nothing else, that will be the justice. Your questions belie a naive belief in Ultimate Justice.
bloomj31:That's not good enough for me.
ama gi: Angurse:Have government in the form of a firm instead of a state for starters. Or, how about no government at all. Let the people themselves act as legislators, cops, and judges in a direct democracy.
Can there be multiple democracies? Say, you are a member of one democracy while I am a member of another?
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."
bloomj31: Alright, I'm done arguing about this for now. We shall see what happens, perhaps the an-cap people will be correct. I'm not betting on it though.
Correct about what?
Daniel Muffinburg:Can there be multiple democracies? Say, you are a member of one democracy while I am a member of another?
Of course.
Now of course, only 1 democracy can have jurisdiction in a certain dispute. If you commit a crime in California, you will be arrested and tried in California under California law, not Nevada or Texas--regardless of whether you live in Nevada or Texas, or whether you really really like Nevada or Texas.
And of course there would be something similar in anarchy.
ama gi: Now of course, only 1 democracy can have jurisdiction in a certain dispute. If you commit a crime in California, you will be arrested and tried in California under California law, not Nevada or Texas--regardless of whether you live in Nevada or Texas, or whether you really really like Nevada or Texas.
That's all fine, but if you commit a crime in your own home, why should California have jurisdiction over that?
ama gi: Daniel Muffinburg:Can there be multiple democracies? Say, you are a member of one democracy while I am a member of another? Of course...
Of course...
Can I be the sole member of a democracy?
ama gi:Or, how about no government at all. Let the people themselves act as legislators, cops, and judges in a direct democracy.
How does being a member of a firm removes your status as being a person? Regardless, direct democracy is still a government ... a bad one at that.
For those that are defending democracy how do you deal with the economic calculation problem? That is after-all primarily the reason why democracy fails.
filc: For those that are defending democracy how do you deal with the economic calculation problem? That is after-all primarily the reason why democracy fails.
Since a direct democracy does require taxes, it does not reallocate scarce resources. So where does the "economic calculation problem" fit in to this?
ama gi:Since a direct democracy does require taxes, it does not reallocate scarce resources.
was there a type here somewhere? or something ?
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
ama gi: filc: For those that are defending democracy how do you deal with the economic calculation problem? That is after-all primarily the reason why democracy fails. Since a direct democracy does require taxes, it does not reallocate scarce resources. So where does the "economic calculation problem" fit in to this?
I do not understand. Please explain further.
Daniel Muffinburg:Can I be the sole member of a democracy?
If you want to call yourself that, then yeah. But if you infringe on my rights, it is the perogative of my democracy to bring you to justice.
Sheesh. All these trick questions are making my head hurt.
Daniel Muffinburg:Since a direct democracy does require taxes, it does not reallocate scarce resources. So where does the "economic calculation problem" fit in to this?
My bad.
Since a direct democracy does NOT require taxes, it does not reallocate scarce resources. So where does the "economic calculation problem" fit in to this?
ama gi:Since a direct democracy does NOT require taxes,
ama gi: Daniel Muffinburg:Since a direct democracy does require taxes, it does not reallocate scarce resources. So where does the "economic calculation problem" fit in to this? My bad. Since a direct democracy does NOT require taxes, it does not reallocate scarce resources. So where does the "economic calculation problem" fit in to this?
So, these democracies you advocate, how are they states?
Daniel Muffinburg:So, these democracies you advocate, how are they states?
They aren't.
Popular referendum, citizens arrest, and trial by jury. Add them together, and you have democratic anarchy. No legislation, regulation, or taxation needed.
ama gi:Popular referendum, citizens arrest, and trial by jury. Add them together, and you have democratic anarchy. No legislation, regulation, or taxation needed.
Who pays for and maintains these services.
What happens if a private security agency would like to offer it's services to a city? Is that allowed or does your 'direct' democracy still assume a monopoly over force?
ama gi: Daniel Muffinburg:So, these democracies you advocate, how are they states? They aren't. Popular referendum, citizens arrest, and trial by jury. Add them together, and you have democratic anarchy. No legislation, regulation, or taxation needed.
So, how is this incompatible with anarcho-capitalism?
bloomj31:Power is a function of numbers and arms.
No it isn't. Why do citizens obey their rulers, when the former greatly outnumber and have more arms than the latter? It always comes back to ideas. Ideas rule the world.
See Mises, Boétie, and Hayek for starters.
AnalyticalAnarchism.net - The Positive Political Economy of Anarchism
Right, and those numbers are dependent upon consent, which is dependent on ideas, which is dependent on philosophy.
You won't be able to grasp this stuff,unless you start to take your premises through more than one logical progression.
I suggest reading De La Boetie on servitude. You can find material on this site.
Daniel Muffinburg:So, how is this incompatible with anarcho-capitalism?
This thread should be re-titled to "Why I'm an anarcho-capitalist who believes in direct democracy."
filc:Who pays for the Jail, court house, Judge, ect....
Court fees. If somebody goes to court, they have to pay for the jury, the guards, etc. The court costs should be evenly split between the plaintiff and defendant, so that one side doesn't have the advantage. Anybody who cannot afford to pay the court costs should set up a legal fund and have sympathetic people contribute.
Since the service is paid by user fees, no taxes are necessary. It creates a positive externality; you enjoy the peace and security the law offers, but you don't pay for it unless you actually use it.
filc:What happens if a private security agency would like to offer it's services to a city? Is that allowed or does your 'direct' democracy still assume a monopoly over force?
If some security agency or PDA wants to offer their services, fine. But they cannot make up their own rules; they have to abide by the laws that have been set by court precedent and public referendum.
A pluralty of police companies is ok; a pluralty of law codes is not.
what keeps courts/judges honest, where there is not competition in courts/judges?
ama gi: A pluralty of police companies is ok; a pluralty of law codes is not.
What? Its either one world government or its plural, which is it now?
ama gi: Now of course, only 1 democracy can have jurisdiction in a certain dispute.
Now of course, only 1 democracy can have jurisdiction in a certain dispute.
No contradiction there.
ama gi: ama gi: A pluralty of police companies is ok; a pluralty of law codes is not. ama gi: Now of course, only 1 democracy can have jurisdiction in a certain dispute. No contradiction there.
I'd still like to know how the system you advocate is incompatible with anarcho-capitalism.
Are you sure?
nirgrahamUK: what keeps courts/judges honest, where there is not competition in courts/judges?
Show me twelve jurors selected at random, and I'm sure they are honest.
Show me a career judge who has been presiding over a court for twenty years, and I'll bet he has been offered some cash from interested parties.
Daniel Muffinburg:I'd still like to know how the system you advocate is incompatible with anarcho-capitalism.
Under direct democracy, majority consensus is legally binding.
Under anarcho-capitalism, only contracts are legally binding.
I think....
ama gi: Daniel Muffinburg:I'd still like to know how the system you advocate is incompatible with anarcho-capitalism. Under direct democracy, majority consensus is legally binding. Under anarcho-capitalism, only contracts are legally binding. I think....
How are the democracies you advocate entered into if not by contract?
ama gi:Show me twelve jurors selected at random, and I'm sure they are honest.
are the random-selectors chosen at random ?
do you have a problem of regress......
Daniel Muffinburg:How are the democracies you advocate entered into if not by contract?
Ouch, ama gi in full retreat now!
By natural law.
Morality is not optional. It is not "entered into" by contract. You are obligated to respect the lives and properties of others, regardless of whether or not you signed a contract to that effect. For that reason, contracts are not the be-all and end-all of civil law.
If a law has been passed by democratic processes, and it is consistent with natural law, it is a moral imperative to obey that law. If a law has been passed by democratic processes (or any other process) that is not consistent with natural law, it is a moral imperative to violate that law. It's as simple as that.
Natural law is what protects human rights. But--here's the kicker--natural law is invisible. Inaudiable. Almost imaginary. And for that reason, somebody needs to put that law into words.
Now the question is, who? Some dictator? Some legislature? Some privileged nobility class?
Or maybe some myriad of private corporations?
I'd rather have natural law be verbalized by you and me. Ordinary people without any fancy titles.