I tried posting a few things on democrats.com and I kept getting some insane responses from some Jim guy. Take a look, its pretty amusing.
http://www.democrats.com/2-economy-questions-are-too-many-for-the-mba-president
http://www.democrats.com/node/17213
http://www.democrats.com/node/15425
He seems to advocate a wealth/property based tax which is considered by most economist the be the most rational tax. I disagree with most of the other stuff he says, but he is correct on that point. The governments main job is defense of wealth, and the most accurate way to asses that is through a direct tax of wealth.
NateS: The governments main job is defense of wealth
The governments main job is defense of wealth
Say what?!
As far as reality is concerned, the government's main job is to steal wealth through taxation. Somehow I don't remember asking my government for wealth protection, and last time we were robbed the police did a terrible job...
As for the Jim guy, I stopped reading at "Force U.S. manufacturers". Any guy that supports coercion is evil in my books, and I care not for their argument as coercion is immoral.
Meh, Deomcracy is the worst form of government except for the rest. It's hard to have property rights and in turn free markets without some kind of authority.
NateS: Meh, Deomcracy is the worst form of government except for the rest.
Meh, Deomcracy is the worst form of government except for the rest.
Which is why I'm an anarchist. Governments don't work, period.
NateS: It's hard to have property rights and in turn free markets without some kind of authority.
It's hard to have property rights and in turn free markets without some kind of authority.
Why is that? Do you have some sort of argument? because from where I'm sitting you're making empty assertions.
Property rights stem from self-ownership, and the very existence of governments is a contradiction of self-ownership (any forms of taxation). You see, taxation is by definition involuntary (else it would be donation) and thus, being a coercive mechanism, is in direct contradiction with any universal ethical system of property rights. It is not only the most direct threat to property rights imaginable, but it is also immorable, all the more so because it is regarded by most as moral!
If you were really concerned about property rights, you wouldn't be arguing for government, or violent authorities.
Well, that anarchy idea didn't work to well when you got robbed. Is something really yours if you can't protect it?
NateS: Well, that anarchy idea didn't work to well when you got robbed. Is something really yours if you can't protect it?
Huh? Clearly I didn't have a competent restitution agency working for me because the government has a monopoly on the police force/courts/"justice", and outlaws any real competition in the sector. You tried to argue against anarchy and freedom of competition, but that argument just boomeranged right back at you :)
Edit: Btw, when the cops came around, they invited a "specialist" to take off fingerprints. They went around the whole house, putting some sort of white powder everywhere, which was supposed to show up fingerprints. After 30 minutes of work, she declared there were none to be seen, and left. After a careful inspection, I saw 100s of full fingerprints all over the place. The corruption and laziness that is happening today is purely a result of the coercive government monopoly. No government agency would survive in a free market.
What kind of strawman is that?
It's not like he is banned from concealing a weapon or anything like that by the government in order to protect himself.
Oh and by the way, the government has something called taxes (you may have heard of them). I think there may even be a special tax on security cameras and the like, because they cost a fortune in Belgium, and were way more expensive than what was stolen.
It's like the silencer tax for guns in America. Thousands of people lose hearing every year because there's a flat 200 dollar tax on silencers (last I heard anyway).
Ohh, we are talking about the laws of Belgium? As far as I know you are allowed weapons in my country, and most wealthy people have their own security. Despite this, people are still robbed on a daily basis. If anarchy worked so well, why is every country in Anarchy the poorest in the world?
NateS:As far as I know you are allowed weapons in my country, and most wealthy people have their own security. Despite this, people are still robbed on a daily basis.
So you live in an anarchist country then?
The fact that people get robbed on a daily basis under a non-anarchist system really doesn't say anything about robbery statistics under an anarchist system.
NateS:If anarchy worked so well, why is every country in Anarchy the poorest in the world?
Oh, yeah?
Which anarchist countries? 'Every country' would seem to suggest that there are a bunch.
Anonymous Coward: NateS:As far as I know you are allowed weapons in my country, and most wealthy people have their own security. Despite this, people are still robbed on a daily basis. So you live in an anarchist country then? The fact that people get robbed on a daily basis under a non-anarchist system really doesn't say anything about robbery statistics under an anarchist system. NateS:If anarchy worked so well, why is every country in Anarchy the poorest in the world? Oh, yeah? Which anarchist countries? 'Every country' would seem to suggest that there are a bunch.
He's probably going to whip out Somalia as a "good" example, ignoring that Somalia's anarchy is mostly clan based. Praying on the fears of things outside of your control (i.e. if a person suddenlly decides to rob you, the only thing you really have control over is defending yourself) is not an honest way to argue against anarchism, or libertarianism, for that matter.
"Look at me, I'm quoting another user to show how wrong I think they are, out of arrogance of my own position. Wait, this is my own quote, oh shi-" ~ Nitroadict
How could we have competition in the justice and legal system? I am all for free markets, but I dont see how a judical system that is competing for dollars could be fair and impartial.
rixross:How could we have competition in the justice and legal system? I am all for free markets, but I dont see how a judical system that is competing for dollars could be fair and impartial.
Would you pay for an unfair and partial judicial system?
Anonymous Coward: rixross:How could we have competition in the justice and legal system? I am all for free markets, but I dont see how a judical system that is competing for dollars could be fair and impartial. Would you pay for an unfair and partial judicial system?
Baaziiing! :P
Regarding Somalia, for an anarchist society to actually work, the people involved have to want anarchy. In somalia, almost nobody really wants anarchy, the various warring factions all want to reassert control of their own version of a government, so all it is, is clans competing for a monopoly on coercion. Plus, the justice system there is very unlibertarian, mainly based on theocracy iirc, and the courts are sponsored by religious/statist organisations outside the country too.
What happens if two parties involved in a dispute won't reach a consensus on which judge to choose?
NateS:Well, that anarchy idea didn't work to well when you got robbed. Is something really yours if you can't protect it?
Apparently that state idea didn't work too well for him either did it? But the state was charging protection money anyway.
The poorest places in the world are actually the ones with the lowest freedom index. ("Economic Freedom of the World" published by Fraser Institute)
In the case of Somalia, western states (including the U.S.) have actually financed and enticed its destruction with bounties, mercenaries and direct military assaults. However, I recall reading a GDP growth report that showed its fastest growth beginning a few years after the initial revolution and ending after the new government formed.
Sphairon: What happens if two parties involved in a dispute won't reach a consensus on which judge to choose?
That situation may be one in which the court of public opinion could come into play. Perhaps both sides could publicize their cases to the relevant communities and advocate boycott.
It should also be remembered that the parties involved would have to pay for their stubborness, as other people would be hesitant to interact or do business with someone who refuses to see the arbitration process to its end.
I think that these concerns would provide incentive (for people who value interaction with other people) to resolve their disputes. There would always be consequences for being an a**hole :)
Stolz2525: NateS:Well, that anarchy idea didn't work to well when you got robbed. Is something really yours if you can't protect it? Apparently that state idea didn't work too well for him either did it? But the state was charging protection money anyway.
The state, like the mafia, was charging me for protection from itself, not other criminals. Have no illusions :)
mitcjm: Sphairon: What happens if two parties involved in a dispute won't reach a consensus on which judge to choose? That situation may be one in which the court of public opinion could come into play. Perhaps both sides could publicize their cases to the relevant communities and advocate boycott. It should also be remembered that the parties involved would have to pay for their stubborness, as other people would be hesitant to interact or do business with someone who refuses to see the arbitration process to its end. I think that these concerns would provide incentive (for people who value interaction with other people) to resolve their disputes. There would always be consequences for being an a**hole :)
Friedman suggested that the client's PDAs would have contracts predetermining courts. So let's say person A and B have protection agency PA and PB. PA and PB, in the interest of saving money, time, and possibly face, would agree in advance to go to a court X. Of course, if the clients disagree with such a decision, they can always hire another PDA.
Let's say A hires protection agency PC instead of PA. PC will still want agreements with the other agencies, but may agree with both agencies PA and PB to go to court Y. Thus, protection agencies (such as PA) may in some cases patronise one court (when dealing with PB), and in other cases a different court (when dealing with PC).
Damn, that probably sounded more confusing than it should have been :/
Ok, then consider this example:
Someone kills your mother. You hire an a police service and they believe they have found the killer. You wish to bring him to justice. He does not agree to be a part of any trial. What do you do with no government?
And imagine the person that supposedly killed your mother has no protection agency.
Well if they don't want to go to the specified court, they have to have a reason. Depending on that reason, I would personally deal with the situation in different ways.
If the reason was that he did not believe that the court would give him a fair trial, then I would be open to negotiating a different court. Of course, rankings, court inspection agencies, etc. would exist to keep a record of corruption, so making a choice wouldn't be hard.
If they don't wish to participate at all and have no good reason for it, then obviously they aren't innocent. If they were innocent, they'd have no trouble coming to court and destroying any so called "evidence" my PDA may have, and getting their legal fees + moral damages (or whatever it's called) paid too. Since they aren't doing that, they are either incredibly stupid, or guilty. Eitherway, failing a peaceful resolution of the matter, and if they can't find a PDA that would help him (who says charity lawyers or what not won't exist?) my PDA would probably force him to go to trial. As in, drag him to the court. If the court finds him to be innocent, I imagine huge repairs would be paid by the PDA, and I'd likely unsubscribe from their services.
No matter how you spin it though, the presence of a multitude of courts (i.e. competition) is the best deterrent against corruption possible. A coercive monopoly on force is no just way to handle conflicts. The relegation of all conflicts and problems to governments betrays a lack of imagination, and nothing more.
Edit: as a P.S. if someone accused me of a crime I did not commit, I would gladly go to the court, prove my alibi, and get a load of money in repairs in the process. If I was somehow convicted anyway, and suspected corruption at the court, I'd say this "Well, if your evidence really is so conclusive, how about another court judges me. If they agree, you have nothing to lose, and your position as a trusted court will only be reinforced." And of course, contact media or whoever to make sure they get the word out, so that if the PDA/court that wronged me disagree with the appeal, they'd get into an enormous scandal.
rixross: Ok, then consider this example: Someone kills your mother. You hire an a police service and they believe they have found the killer. You wish to bring him to justice. He does not agree to be a part of any trial. What do you do with no government?
I would order my protection agency to detain him, take him to a reputable court and have him tried. If he's guilty, I will be compensated for the cost and he will be punished.
You can order, but they won't obey. No dragging is involved until the man is found guilty by the court and the punishment involves dragging. Man's presence at trial, or agreement to it, is not required, although he could benefit from representation. If there's sufficient evidence, a fair and impartial court will find guilt and determine appropriate punishment and/or restitution.
Let's not forget that private production of justice means you yourself can be a judge and executioner. The downside of that is that the other party can disagree with your verdict, and prosecute you back. Hence the benefit of hiring an impartial court.
NateS:Meh, Deomcracy is the worst form of government except for the rest.
Peace
Yes, confusing, because in your model PA's are bound to fail, on a single case of disagreement. That's not good economic practice. Allow me to recommend Private Production of Defense by Hoppe. In this model, PA's are hired by insurance companies, and their sole responsibility is, well, protection; it's not deciding whether to protect or not. Deciding is done by insurance companies, that's their money maker. To drive costs down and, especially, avoid armed confrontation between PA's, insurance contracts will stipulate that client will not aggress against property of others and that contract (along with protection) will be void if he/she is found guilty by accredited courts. Of course you can hire a private army, but then your soldiers will have to share your risks, and they'll ask for much higher compensation than what an insurance policy would cost. So, it's your choice and your wallet, whether to commit to live and let live, or not.
Period: Yes, confusing, because in your model PA's are bound to fail, on a single case of disagreement. That's not good economic practice. Allow me to recommend Private Production of Defense by Hoppe. In this model, PA's are hired by insurance companies, and their sole responsibility is, well, protection; it's not deciding whether to protect or not. Deciding is done by insurance companies, that's their money maker. To drive costs down and, especially, avoid armed confrontation between PA's, insurance contracts will stipulate that client will not aggress against property of others and that contract (along with protection) will be void if he/she is found guilty by accredited courts. Of course you can hire a private army, but then your soldiers will have to share your risks, and they'll ask for much higher compensation than what an insurance policy would cost. So, it's your choice and your wallet, whether to commit to live and let live, or not.
Thanks for the link :)
I don't see how a monopoly on the provision of law and order can be fair, just or objective...
-Jon
Freedom of markets is positively correlated with the degree of evolution in any society...
Fred Furash: Anonymous Coward: rixross:How could we have competition in the justice and legal system? I am all for free markets, but I dont see how a judical system that is competing for dollars could be fair and impartial. Would you pay for an unfair and partial judicial system? Baaziiing! :P Regarding Somalia, for an anarchist society to actually work, the people involved have to want anarchy. In somalia, almost nobody really wants anarchy, the various warring factions all want to reassert control of their own version of a government, so all it is, is clans competing for a monopoly on coercion.
Regarding Somalia, for an anarchist society to actually work, the people involved have to want anarchy. In somalia, almost nobody really wants anarchy, the various warring factions all want to reassert control of their own version of a government, so all it is, is clans competing for a monopoly on coercion.
More importantly, they are competing for a state apparatus which was foisted upon the Somalis by the UN and promptly rejected by the people. There are warlords (in fact) who are attracted to the power that would come with the control of that apparatus. And then there are "warlords" (as described by the pro-statist media) who are actually protecting people quite efficiently and fairly against the true warlords.
In the absence of the inorganic, UN-imposed political structure, the former sort of warlords would be completely disenfranchised.
It is also fair to mention that the violence is drastically over-represented by the media, and that they make no mention of the fact that Somalia has the fastest-growing economy of any African country at this time. People have things to sell, and they go to sell them without having to ask permission from any government, which means people who want sanitation, healthcare, cars, even cellphones, can just go out and get them. Whereas the "stable" democratic (or otherwise statist) nations "ration" all the goods and services that anyone even bothers to offer in those places.
Pro Christo et Libertate integre!
If I knew he was the killer I'd probably just kill him myself. If he doesn't have an agreement with any protection agency no one is going to come looking for me anyway are they?
Stolz2525: rixross: Ok, then consider this example: Someone kills your mother. You hire an a police service and they believe they have found the killer. You wish to bring him to justice. He does not agree to be a part of any trial. What do you do with no government? If I knew he was the killer I'd probably just kill him myself. If he doesn't have an agreement with any protection agency no one is going to come looking for me anyway are they?
Maybe not, but you would probably still be expected to prove his guilt so as not to be labeled by the community as a mad killer. I expect that there would be courts willing to issue "warrants" to people who want to take care of things themselves after proving their case, but I think vigilantism would be more trouble than it's worth.
Come on guys. None of what you are talking about would make practical sense. Some courts would say that any person that commits adultery should be killed. If someone could be tried there and they would die. Don't act like this is not a possiblity, because who would prevent it? Then what would happen? Would another pa attack that court?
I am a huge believer in free markets. I love free trade. But someone has to be there to do one thing: Protect our rights to act in any way we choose, as long as we do not cause damages to another.
The threats to our rights come from foreign and domestic aggression. For protection agaisnt foreign aggression, we need an army, not for attacks on others, but for protection if attacked. For protection against domestic aggression we need our law of protection of rights, and an impartial body to enforce that.
Governments would not be so bad if they could not do anything. America was a worthy experiment. Clearly the constitution has its flaws, but it was a step very far in the right direction. Had we forced government to not be able to add to its power, to only able to punish those that violate an individuals rights to life liberty and property. Everything else would be left to the market. A government in this capacity would not be a costly ordeal, it could most likely be financed by a .5% tax on everyone. Sure, throw in a slippery slope argument, but who would really argue about paying .5% of their income in taxes. Maybe it could be run off of private donations, it surely would not be expensive.
How would someone design this perfect system I speak of so that it could not be corrupted over the years? Who knows, that is for someone smarter than me to craft. But all I say is not all people see that the best way towards making life better for yourself is to do something that makes everyone elses life better. No, I'm not talking about alturism, I am talking about you personally benefiting from helping others, through free market capitalism. But some people will cheat, steal and kill, and it is above the market to deal with them on an appropriate level. For sure, people would stop dealing with them, but it could still be worth it to some to harm others directly and profit from it and just live with being snubbed by your peers. How could someone justify that it is profitable to punish someone that murders only a few people? Unless they lived off of donations, it would never happen. And would you want United Way or some Christian charity running your vigilante justice system?
rixross: Come on guys. None of what you are talking about would make practical sense. Some courts would say that any person that commits adultery should be killed.
Come on guys. None of what you are talking about would make practical sense. Some courts would say that any person that commits adultery should be killed.
And nobody would take them seriously. They would find support for thier murder of adulterers in short supply. In effect, they would become an outlaw band - who would have to fight not only other outlaws, but also the vast majority of PDAs who exercise basic common sense - not to mention follow a libertarian ethic.
...someone has to be there to do one thing: Protect our rights to act in any way we choose, as long as we do not cause damages to another.
That is quite correct, but you are falling into the most common fallacy of statism: You acknowledge, correctly, that someone must resolve disputes. But you then take that to mean that ONE organization must resolve ALL disputes.
The threats to our rights come from foreign and domestic aggression.
No, not really. The greatest threats to our rights come from the only organization with the legitimized power to take them away, and that is the state. If a terrorist organization starts killing people, and the people stamp them out, nobody will challenge their right to do so. But a government will take away the people's guns with a few strokes of a pen in the name of fighting the terrorists, and then proceed to do the same sorts of things the terrorists would have done.
For protection agaisnt foreign aggression, we need an army, not for attacks on others, but for protection if attacked.
Unwarranted assumption. Just because an army is what we have in no way proves that an army is what we need. In fact, what we have does a shite-awful job of protecting us. That shouldn't be suprising, for they do not have to compete for their income - they simply take it by force. And as the state is a compulsory monopoly, people are prohibitted by law from offering a better service at a cheaper rate.
For protection against domestic aggression we need our law of protection of rights, and an impartial body to enforce that.
That's quite true, but what has that to do with the state? You will never have an impartial body so long as you grant a compulsory monopoly to a single organization. Horizontal appeal is a good step toward impartiality - incidentally, it's also a good step toward privatization.
Governments would not be so bad if they could not do anything.
Yes, clearly. But if governments don't do anything, why have them at all? In such a case, the legitimate roles they generally assume would be taken on by market actors, and the rest of what they do just wouldn't happen.
America was a worthy experiment. Clearly the constitution has its flaws, but it was a step very far in the right direction. Had we forced government to not be able to add to its power, to only able to punish those that violate an individuals rights to life liberty and property. Everything else would be left to the market.
The only way you'll force a government to do any such thing is to deprive it of its legitimized monopoly on force. And in that case, they're not really a government, but a competing business.
. . .Maybe it could be run off of private donations, it surely would not be expensive.
Or maybe people can just offer services to people who want them at a price that is acceptible to the buyer.
How would someone design this perfect system I speak of so that it could not be corrupted over the years? Who knows, that is for someone smarter than me to craft.
BS. The point is that such a thing cannot be crafted by a single person, or a body of persons. The problem with the system is that there IS a "system".
The "perfect system" is the one which forms in the absence of coercion (i.e., as a result of the voluntary interractions of individuals). The free market is the only environment in which people can create, examine, recreate, adjust, and perfect products and services, and protection and adjudication are no different.
. . .But some people will cheat, steal and kill, and it is above the market to deal with them on an appropriate level.
Another unwarranted assumption. A system of law and justice that recognizes private property will be quite competent at creating disincentives for those who violate it.
How could someone justify that it is profitable to punish someone that murders only a few people?
Easily. Reciprocity and proportional justice. If a life has been stolen, a life is owed. Whether that means indentureship or execution is up to the heirs of the victim and their agents who would be responsible for carrying the actions out.
And would you want United Way or some Christian charity running your vigilante justice system?
Why not? They'd certainly do it better than the bureaucratic mob-state apparatus which results from compulsory monopolism.
But why should charitable organizations be responsible for such things? More likely, insurance-based protection companies would retain specialized PDAs to deal with recalcitrant criminals.
On one of the pages, it is sad that someone is economically illiterate. The awesome thing was the comments that showed basic economic facts that he ignored.
Schools are labour camps.
You seem to think that there are not a significant amount of crazy people on this planet. You don't think that there would be a market for these crazy people. But their would be. Why would these PA's follow libertartian ethics? The majority of people in this country and around the world believe in religion, not individual choice. If PA's had an ablitiy to use force, they could use it to the whim of these people to, "Kill the heretics" or "punish non-believers".
And what would be this recognized "Law". Who would right it? There woudl be competing law. Some people would recognize certain things as illegal other's would not. There would be no uniform code of justice, so if someone wanted to take you to court for something, there would be a court to try them in. These courts would be serving the market, and therefore public opinion, so you cannot say that they would all follow this libertartian ethic. If public opinion wanted all Muslim people dead, then that is what they would offer. And the general public is not as fair and just as you would lead us all to believe.
rixross: You seem to think that there are not a significant amount of crazy people on this planet. You don't think that there would be a market for these crazy people. But their would be. Why would these PA's follow libertartian ethics? The majority of people in this country and around the world believe in religion, not individual choice. If PA's had an ablitiy to use force, they could use it to the whim of these people to, "Kill the heretics" or "punish non-believers". And what would be this recognized "Law". Who would right it? There woudl be competing law. Some people would recognize certain things as illegal other's would not. There would be no uniform code of justice, so if someone wanted to take you to court for something, there would be a court to try them in. These courts would be serving the market, and therefore public opinion, so you cannot say that they would all follow this libertartian ethic. If public opinion wanted all Muslim people dead, then that is what they would offer. And the general public is not as fair and just as you would lead us all to believe.
So let me get this straight. Your solution to the problem of human nature is to create a ruling class of corrupt officials who are essentially above their own laws? Wow, just wow.
Mises had a good quote about this:
"If one rejects laissez faire on account of mans fallibility and moral weakness, one must for the same reason also reject every kind of government action."
rixross:You seem to think that there are not a significant amount of crazy people on this planet. You don't think that there would be a market for these crazy people. But their would be.
I'm confused as to why you don't think these people are affecting government if there are so many of them.
We have people get aquitted of crimes they didn't commit after they've been in jail 20 years now. Fully a third of the prison population is locked up for drug related "crimes", so these things you are worried about happening are already occuring under our current system. Why, if we have an obviously imperfect system, do you demand that anything replacing it be perfect instead of just better?
rixross:And what would be this recognized "Law". Who would write it? There woudl be competing law. Some people would recognize certain things as illegal other's would not.
That's the nice part about private property, you can decide the rules on your slice of land. There wouldn't be any over-ruling "law" in the traditional sense you mean, just one basic non-agression principal everyone would follow.
rixross:I tried posting a few things on democrats.com and I kept getting some insane responses from some Jim guy. Take a look, its pretty amusing.
How did you keep from getting blocked on that site anyway? I posted one time and I get sent to a "troll" page now. Kinda funny for a group supposedly big on free speech and all that.