Jacob Bloom:Blackwater is exactly what is meant by a PDA. Now ask yourselves: "are these the people we want watching over us?"
Strange how that question doesn't apply to government for you.
'Men do not change, they unmask themselves' - Germaine de Stael
Daniel: Jacob Bloom: Daniel: Jacob Bloom: The other thing about "corrupt courts will get pushed out of business" is that...those courts will still be ruling in favor of someone! So they won't go out of business, criminals will just go to those specific courts to get their charges dismissed. Hell, I'd open a court and just let people know I'd rule in favor of whatever is illegal. And then all the criminals will come to me and I'll have tons of business. This is a good idea actually. Ok, start your anarchist society, I will be opening the "Court for Criminals" Even if this were true or ever happened, how is the state better? Also, would a court that sided with the non-criminals also have a lot a business? The state is better because the US Supreme Court's ruling is final. There is nowhere else you can go after the US Supreme Court. The issue is finalized, if you don't adhere to its rulings, you will face serious consequences. Everyone knows that, so the SC's rulings get honored. Yes, the non criminal court would have business, my court would too. Then we'd have a war over whose rulings were to be enforced. It would all come down to who could afford the better PDA. I'd imagine that all the non criminals would be broke because the criminals would have taken everything from them, so I think we'd get the better army. In the mean time, criminals would still be free to roam around committing crimes and you'd have chaos. How is the US Supreme Court's ruling final? What if I decide to not abide by it and flee to a non-extradition country? Jacob Bloom: Daniel: Jacob Bloom: Daniel: Jacob Bloom:Ok, If there is no final arbiter then the laws are ultimately unenforceable and everyone will know that, not just the really smart ones. 1) Whose laws?2) Why would laws be unenforcable? Jacob Bloom:By perfectly civilized beings I mean...like...that humans would be able to be like angels. Just purely benevolent creatures who act totally rationally and with the luxury of infinite time. This is not our situation. Which Austrian economists described humans as "angels", as benevolent, and as having "the luxury of infinite time"? Jacob Bloom:Lol, if you could force me to read this stuff, you'd probably be more likely to convince me and get what you want, but this goes against your creed. Which is ironic. As you can imagine, someone else might not be so scrupulous. Yes, it was supposed to be ironic. It was a pun towards you. Lol. Jacob Bloom:2. A private law system has not existed in a developed country because it's such a ridiculous idea, no one even wants to try it. I mean think about what happens if you're wrong. Free markets can be tried with much less risk. So we've tried them, they mostly work. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lex_mercatoria Is it okay if I link to Wikipedia? 1. a.) Will you not have national laws? So basically...you'll have little local laws? Ok, so I break your laws, I go somewhere else, nothing happens to me, right? b.) Because if I don't like what Court A says, I can just go to Court B. If they rule in favor of me, I'll just say I'm abiding by Court B's ruling. With no final arbiter, there's no way you can make me adhere to Court A's ruling. 2. I dunno, but that's the way you seem to think of people in markets and in courts. Like they are angels with infinite amounts of time to make the optimal decision for themselves. This is not how it works. 3. So are there differences between the time when Lex Mercatoria worked and now? Has the complexity of the market changed? What about how many people playing in it? What happened when someone refused to adhere to a Lex Mercatoria ruling? National laws imply a nation. What nation would there be? Also, the arbiter doesn't enforce anything, the enforcers do. Concerning number 2, I can haz proof? Concerning number 3, I only linked to the website to disprove your claim. Jacob Bloom: Knight_of_BAAWA: Jacob Bloom:Do you know what Blackwater is?Yes: a fully-owned subsidiary corporation of the United States Federal Government. No, Blackwater is a private security contractor. They get most of their contracts from the US government but they are still privately owned and operated. What is the difference between a person who works for the government as a soldier and a company that works for the government as an army? 1. You brought up Lex Mercatoria like that's your model for a private legal system. Apparently, it didn't last for very long and it existed during a time when trade was very different from the way it is now. So it's non applicable. 2. The company can choose who it fights and when and under what conditions. Because it's private. 1) It is not necessarily my model for a private legal system. I already told you why I brought it up. 2) No it doesn't It is under orders of the US government. Jacob, you have been consistently disproven by many of us. We could care less if you decide to stop arguing with us. You're like target practice. Thanks for the help.
Jacob Bloom: Daniel: Jacob Bloom: The other thing about "corrupt courts will get pushed out of business" is that...those courts will still be ruling in favor of someone! So they won't go out of business, criminals will just go to those specific courts to get their charges dismissed. Hell, I'd open a court and just let people know I'd rule in favor of whatever is illegal. And then all the criminals will come to me and I'll have tons of business. This is a good idea actually. Ok, start your anarchist society, I will be opening the "Court for Criminals" Even if this were true or ever happened, how is the state better? Also, would a court that sided with the non-criminals also have a lot a business? The state is better because the US Supreme Court's ruling is final. There is nowhere else you can go after the US Supreme Court. The issue is finalized, if you don't adhere to its rulings, you will face serious consequences. Everyone knows that, so the SC's rulings get honored. Yes, the non criminal court would have business, my court would too. Then we'd have a war over whose rulings were to be enforced. It would all come down to who could afford the better PDA. I'd imagine that all the non criminals would be broke because the criminals would have taken everything from them, so I think we'd get the better army. In the mean time, criminals would still be free to roam around committing crimes and you'd have chaos.
Daniel: Jacob Bloom: The other thing about "corrupt courts will get pushed out of business" is that...those courts will still be ruling in favor of someone! So they won't go out of business, criminals will just go to those specific courts to get their charges dismissed. Hell, I'd open a court and just let people know I'd rule in favor of whatever is illegal. And then all the criminals will come to me and I'll have tons of business. This is a good idea actually. Ok, start your anarchist society, I will be opening the "Court for Criminals" Even if this were true or ever happened, how is the state better? Also, would a court that sided with the non-criminals also have a lot a business?
Jacob Bloom: The other thing about "corrupt courts will get pushed out of business" is that...those courts will still be ruling in favor of someone! So they won't go out of business, criminals will just go to those specific courts to get their charges dismissed. Hell, I'd open a court and just let people know I'd rule in favor of whatever is illegal. And then all the criminals will come to me and I'll have tons of business. This is a good idea actually. Ok, start your anarchist society, I will be opening the "Court for Criminals"
The other thing about "corrupt courts will get pushed out of business" is that...those courts will still be ruling in favor of someone! So they won't go out of business, criminals will just go to those specific courts to get their charges dismissed.
Hell, I'd open a court and just let people know I'd rule in favor of whatever is illegal. And then all the criminals will come to me and I'll have tons of business. This is a good idea actually. Ok, start your anarchist society, I will be opening the "Court for Criminals"
Even if this were true or ever happened, how is the state better? Also, would a court that sided with the non-criminals also have a lot a business?
The state is better because the US Supreme Court's ruling is final. There is nowhere else you can go after the US Supreme Court. The issue is finalized, if you don't adhere to its rulings, you will face serious consequences. Everyone knows that, so the SC's rulings get honored.
Yes, the non criminal court would have business, my court would too. Then we'd have a war over whose rulings were to be enforced. It would all come down to who could afford the better PDA. I'd imagine that all the non criminals would be broke because the criminals would have taken everything from them, so I think we'd get the better army. In the mean time, criminals would still be free to roam around committing crimes and you'd have chaos.
How is the US Supreme Court's ruling final? What if I decide to not abide by it and flee to a non-extradition country?
Jacob Bloom: Daniel: Jacob Bloom: Daniel: Jacob Bloom:Ok, If there is no final arbiter then the laws are ultimately unenforceable and everyone will know that, not just the really smart ones. 1) Whose laws?2) Why would laws be unenforcable? Jacob Bloom:By perfectly civilized beings I mean...like...that humans would be able to be like angels. Just purely benevolent creatures who act totally rationally and with the luxury of infinite time. This is not our situation. Which Austrian economists described humans as "angels", as benevolent, and as having "the luxury of infinite time"? Jacob Bloom:Lol, if you could force me to read this stuff, you'd probably be more likely to convince me and get what you want, but this goes against your creed. Which is ironic. As you can imagine, someone else might not be so scrupulous. Yes, it was supposed to be ironic. It was a pun towards you. Lol. Jacob Bloom:2. A private law system has not existed in a developed country because it's such a ridiculous idea, no one even wants to try it. I mean think about what happens if you're wrong. Free markets can be tried with much less risk. So we've tried them, they mostly work. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lex_mercatoria Is it okay if I link to Wikipedia? 1. a.) Will you not have national laws? So basically...you'll have little local laws? Ok, so I break your laws, I go somewhere else, nothing happens to me, right? b.) Because if I don't like what Court A says, I can just go to Court B. If they rule in favor of me, I'll just say I'm abiding by Court B's ruling. With no final arbiter, there's no way you can make me adhere to Court A's ruling. 2. I dunno, but that's the way you seem to think of people in markets and in courts. Like they are angels with infinite amounts of time to make the optimal decision for themselves. This is not how it works. 3. So are there differences between the time when Lex Mercatoria worked and now? Has the complexity of the market changed? What about how many people playing in it? What happened when someone refused to adhere to a Lex Mercatoria ruling? National laws imply a nation. What nation would there be? Also, the arbiter doesn't enforce anything, the enforcers do. Concerning number 2, I can haz proof? Concerning number 3, I only linked to the website to disprove your claim. Jacob Bloom: Knight_of_BAAWA: Jacob Bloom:Do you know what Blackwater is?Yes: a fully-owned subsidiary corporation of the United States Federal Government. No, Blackwater is a private security contractor. They get most of their contracts from the US government but they are still privately owned and operated. What is the difference between a person who works for the government as a soldier and a company that works for the government as an army? 1. You brought up Lex Mercatoria like that's your model for a private legal system. Apparently, it didn't last for very long and it existed during a time when trade was very different from the way it is now. So it's non applicable. 2. The company can choose who it fights and when and under what conditions. Because it's private.
Daniel: Jacob Bloom: Daniel: Jacob Bloom:Ok, If there is no final arbiter then the laws are ultimately unenforceable and everyone will know that, not just the really smart ones. 1) Whose laws?2) Why would laws be unenforcable? Jacob Bloom:By perfectly civilized beings I mean...like...that humans would be able to be like angels. Just purely benevolent creatures who act totally rationally and with the luxury of infinite time. This is not our situation. Which Austrian economists described humans as "angels", as benevolent, and as having "the luxury of infinite time"? Jacob Bloom:Lol, if you could force me to read this stuff, you'd probably be more likely to convince me and get what you want, but this goes against your creed. Which is ironic. As you can imagine, someone else might not be so scrupulous. Yes, it was supposed to be ironic. It was a pun towards you. Lol. Jacob Bloom:2. A private law system has not existed in a developed country because it's such a ridiculous idea, no one even wants to try it. I mean think about what happens if you're wrong. Free markets can be tried with much less risk. So we've tried them, they mostly work. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lex_mercatoria Is it okay if I link to Wikipedia? 1. a.) Will you not have national laws? So basically...you'll have little local laws? Ok, so I break your laws, I go somewhere else, nothing happens to me, right? b.) Because if I don't like what Court A says, I can just go to Court B. If they rule in favor of me, I'll just say I'm abiding by Court B's ruling. With no final arbiter, there's no way you can make me adhere to Court A's ruling. 2. I dunno, but that's the way you seem to think of people in markets and in courts. Like they are angels with infinite amounts of time to make the optimal decision for themselves. This is not how it works. 3. So are there differences between the time when Lex Mercatoria worked and now? Has the complexity of the market changed? What about how many people playing in it? What happened when someone refused to adhere to a Lex Mercatoria ruling? National laws imply a nation. What nation would there be? Also, the arbiter doesn't enforce anything, the enforcers do. Concerning number 2, I can haz proof? Concerning number 3, I only linked to the website to disprove your claim. Jacob Bloom: Knight_of_BAAWA: Jacob Bloom:Do you know what Blackwater is?Yes: a fully-owned subsidiary corporation of the United States Federal Government. No, Blackwater is a private security contractor. They get most of their contracts from the US government but they are still privately owned and operated. What is the difference between a person who works for the government as a soldier and a company that works for the government as an army?
Jacob Bloom: Daniel: Jacob Bloom:Ok, If there is no final arbiter then the laws are ultimately unenforceable and everyone will know that, not just the really smart ones. 1) Whose laws?2) Why would laws be unenforcable? Jacob Bloom:By perfectly civilized beings I mean...like...that humans would be able to be like angels. Just purely benevolent creatures who act totally rationally and with the luxury of infinite time. This is not our situation. Which Austrian economists described humans as "angels", as benevolent, and as having "the luxury of infinite time"? Jacob Bloom:Lol, if you could force me to read this stuff, you'd probably be more likely to convince me and get what you want, but this goes against your creed. Which is ironic. As you can imagine, someone else might not be so scrupulous. Yes, it was supposed to be ironic. It was a pun towards you. Lol. Jacob Bloom:2. A private law system has not existed in a developed country because it's such a ridiculous idea, no one even wants to try it. I mean think about what happens if you're wrong. Free markets can be tried with much less risk. So we've tried them, they mostly work. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lex_mercatoria Is it okay if I link to Wikipedia? 1. a.) Will you not have national laws? So basically...you'll have little local laws? Ok, so I break your laws, I go somewhere else, nothing happens to me, right? b.) Because if I don't like what Court A says, I can just go to Court B. If they rule in favor of me, I'll just say I'm abiding by Court B's ruling. With no final arbiter, there's no way you can make me adhere to Court A's ruling. 2. I dunno, but that's the way you seem to think of people in markets and in courts. Like they are angels with infinite amounts of time to make the optimal decision for themselves. This is not how it works. 3. So are there differences between the time when Lex Mercatoria worked and now? Has the complexity of the market changed? What about how many people playing in it? What happened when someone refused to adhere to a Lex Mercatoria ruling?
Daniel: Jacob Bloom:Ok, If there is no final arbiter then the laws are ultimately unenforceable and everyone will know that, not just the really smart ones. 1) Whose laws?2) Why would laws be unenforcable? Jacob Bloom:By perfectly civilized beings I mean...like...that humans would be able to be like angels. Just purely benevolent creatures who act totally rationally and with the luxury of infinite time. This is not our situation. Which Austrian economists described humans as "angels", as benevolent, and as having "the luxury of infinite time"? Jacob Bloom:Lol, if you could force me to read this stuff, you'd probably be more likely to convince me and get what you want, but this goes against your creed. Which is ironic. As you can imagine, someone else might not be so scrupulous. Yes, it was supposed to be ironic. It was a pun towards you. Lol. Jacob Bloom:2. A private law system has not existed in a developed country because it's such a ridiculous idea, no one even wants to try it. I mean think about what happens if you're wrong. Free markets can be tried with much less risk. So we've tried them, they mostly work. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lex_mercatoria Is it okay if I link to Wikipedia?
Jacob Bloom:Ok, If there is no final arbiter then the laws are ultimately unenforceable and everyone will know that, not just the really smart ones.
1) Whose laws?2) Why would laws be unenforcable?
Jacob Bloom:By perfectly civilized beings I mean...like...that humans would be able to be like angels. Just purely benevolent creatures who act totally rationally and with the luxury of infinite time. This is not our situation.
Which Austrian economists described humans as "angels", as benevolent, and as having "the luxury of infinite time"?
Jacob Bloom:Lol, if you could force me to read this stuff, you'd probably be more likely to convince me and get what you want, but this goes against your creed. Which is ironic. As you can imagine, someone else might not be so scrupulous.
Yes, it was supposed to be ironic. It was a pun towards you. Lol.
Jacob Bloom:2. A private law system has not existed in a developed country because it's such a ridiculous idea, no one even wants to try it. I mean think about what happens if you're wrong. Free markets can be tried with much less risk. So we've tried them, they mostly work.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lex_mercatoria Is it okay if I link to Wikipedia?
1. a.) Will you not have national laws? So basically...you'll have little local laws? Ok, so I break your laws, I go somewhere else, nothing happens to me, right?
b.) Because if I don't like what Court A says, I can just go to Court B. If they rule in favor of me, I'll just say I'm abiding by Court B's ruling. With no final arbiter, there's no way you can make me adhere to Court A's ruling.
2. I dunno, but that's the way you seem to think of people in markets and in courts. Like they are angels with infinite amounts of time to make the optimal decision for themselves. This is not how it works.
3. So are there differences between the time when Lex Mercatoria worked and now? Has the complexity of the market changed? What about how many people playing in it? What happened when someone refused to adhere to a Lex Mercatoria ruling?
National laws imply a nation. What nation would there be? Also, the arbiter doesn't enforce anything, the enforcers do. Concerning number 2, I can haz proof? Concerning number 3, I only linked to the website to disprove your claim.
Jacob Bloom: Knight_of_BAAWA: Jacob Bloom:Do you know what Blackwater is?Yes: a fully-owned subsidiary corporation of the United States Federal Government. No, Blackwater is a private security contractor. They get most of their contracts from the US government but they are still privately owned and operated.
Knight_of_BAAWA: Jacob Bloom:Do you know what Blackwater is?Yes: a fully-owned subsidiary corporation of the United States Federal Government.
Jacob Bloom:Do you know what Blackwater is?
No, Blackwater is a private security contractor. They get most of their contracts from the US government but they are still privately owned and operated.
What is the difference between a person who works for the government as a soldier and a company that works for the government as an army?
1. You brought up Lex Mercatoria like that's your model for a private legal system. Apparently, it didn't last for very long and it existed during a time when trade was very different from the way it is now. So it's non applicable.
2. The company can choose who it fights and when and under what conditions. Because it's private.
1) It is not necessarily my model for a private legal system. I already told you why I brought it up.
2) No it doesn't It is under orders of the US government.
Jacob, you have been consistently disproven by many of us. We could care less if you decide to stop arguing with us. You're like target practice. Thanks for the help.
1. What's your model then? You brought up some antiquated system to show me that once, for a brief period of time a long time ago, it almost worked except didn't?
2. No, it is private, it has no obligation to take whatever contracts it's given, Blackwater chooses what it wants to do. That's what it means to be a private organization.
3. I haven't been disproven by any of you. I'm not arguing, I'm asking questions. I get lackluster answers to those questions which leads me to believe either a.) you guys don't even really understand what you're saying or haven't thought it through or b.) you know it doesn't work but it makes you feel good to talk about anarchy so you do. I'm more inclined to believe B, because the reaction I've gotten to a lot of my questions is basically something akin to cognitive dissonance. You just try not to think about it. I understand. But I am urging you to fight the seductiveness and temptation of ivory tower ideology and instead find some comfort in realism. The government will never ever be dissolved. You know it, I know it. Instead of fighting a pointless fight, let's fight for something we can actually change: the scope and relative size of the government. We can win that war, not the one you're fighting.
Anyways, I'm hungry, gonna go get something to eat, talk to you guys later.
Anarchist Cain: Jacob Bloom:Blackwater is exactly what is meant by a PDA. Now ask yourselves: "are these the people we want watching over us?" Strange how that question doesn't apply to government for you.
I trust the people in government more than I would trust some crazy powerful private defense contractor who could destroy everything with no opposition if it wanted to. It's not that I totally trust the government, I just trust it more than I would trust an unrestricted Blackwater.
Knight_of_BAAWA: Jacob Bloom:The party that receives a favorable ruling is going to turn down a favorable ruling?Why do you never think about the other side? Why are you stuck in "might makes right"?
Jacob Bloom:The party that receives a favorable ruling is going to turn down a favorable ruling?
You are either really really really dense, or you really don't read what I write. Right and wrong don't matter. What's possible and isn't is what matters. Might makes possible.
Jacob Bloom:I never said it was a private arbitration agency. I said it was a private enforcer. Blackwater is exactly what is meant by a PDA. Now ask yourselves: "are these the people we want watching over us?"
The actions of Blackwater coincide with the enforcement of the laws of the public arbitration agencies (i.e., the states) that hire it. Therefore, it is fallicious to claim that the actions of Blackwater are analogous to the expected actions of a private enforcer in an anarchocapitalist society.
If I wrote it more than a few weeks ago, I probably hate it by now.
Eric: Jacob Bloom:Yes, the non criminal court would have business, my court would too. Then we'd have a war over whose rulings were to be enforced. It would all come down to who could afford the better PDA. I'd imagine that all the non criminals would be broke because the criminals would have taken everything from them, so I think we'd get the better army. In the mean time, criminals would still be free to roam around committing crimes and you'd have chaos. I could open a court and rule in my clients favor 100% of the time. Would I have a lot of Clients? No. Why? Because nobody in society except for my clients would view my courts rulings as legitimate. Then if I were dumb enough to wage full scale war against the rest of society, my clients would be the ones who payed the cost. Could they possibly afford this? No.
Jacob Bloom:Yes, the non criminal court would have business, my court would too. Then we'd have a war over whose rulings were to be enforced. It would all come down to who could afford the better PDA. I'd imagine that all the non criminals would be broke because the criminals would have taken everything from them, so I think we'd get the better army. In the mean time, criminals would still be free to roam around committing crimes and you'd have chaos.
I could open a court and rule in my clients favor 100% of the time. Would I have a lot of Clients? No.
Why? Because nobody in society except for my clients would view my courts rulings as legitimate. Then if I were dumb enough to wage full scale war against the rest of society, my clients would be the ones who payed the cost. Could they possibly afford this? No.
LOL, you would have a ton of clients. Every criminal in the area would come to you.
Legitimacy is a good word, I'm glad you said that. Legitimacy is gained by the use of enforcement. As long as you could enforce your crooked rulings, the people would view them as legitimate. They wouldn't have a choice.
And it depends on how many criminals we're talking here. If you've got a bunch of rich criminals, I think you'd do just fine in a war against everyone else.
I. Ryan: Jacob Bloom:I never said it was a private arbitration agency. I said it was a private enforcer. Blackwater is exactly what is meant by a PDA. Now ask yourselves: "are these the people we want watching over us?" The actions of Blackwater coincide with the enforcement of the laws of the public arbitration agencies (i.e., the states) that hire it. Therefore, it is fallicious to claim that the actions of Blackwater are analogous to the expected actions of a private enforcer in an anarchocapitalist society.
It's not fallacious. They're mercs. They'd enforce whatever rules you paid them to in your society or any other. Machiavelli warns about the utility of mercs in The Prince:
I say, therefore, that the arms with which a prince defends his state are either his own, or they are mercenaries, auxiliaries, or mixed. Mercenaries and auxiliaries are useless and dangerous; and if one holds his state based on these arms, he will stand neither firm nor safe; for they are disunited, ambitious and without discipline, unfaithful, valiant before friends, cowardly before enemies; they have neither the fear of God nor fidelity to men, and destruction is deferred only so long as the attack is; for in peace one is robbed by them, and in war by the enemy. The fact is, they have no other attraction or reason for keeping the field than a trifle of stipend, which is not sufficient to make them willing to die for you. They are ready enough to be your soldiers whilst you do not make war, but if war comes they take themselves off or run from the foe; which I should have little trouble to prove, for the ruin of Italy has been caused by nothing else than by resting all her hopes for many years on mercenaries, and although they formerly made some display and appeared valiant amongst themselves, yet when the foreigners came they showed what they were. Thus it was that Charles, King of France, was allowed to seize Italy with chalk in hand; and he who told us that our sins were the cause of it told the truth, but they were not the sins he imagined, but those which I have related. And as they were the sins of princes, it is the princes who have also suffered the penalty.
I wish to demonstrate further the infelicity of these arms. The mercenary captains are either capable men or they are not; if they are, you cannot trust them, because they always aspire to their own greatness, either by oppressing you, who are their master, or others contrary to your intentions; but if the captain is not skilful, you are ruined in the usual way.
Jacob Bloom:You are either really really really dense, or you really don't read what I write.
Jacob Bloom: I trust the people in government more than I would trust some crazy powerful private defense contractor who could destroy everything with no opposition if it wanted to. It's not that I totally trust the government, I just trust it more than I would trust an unrestricted Blackwater.
Then I have to ask you this. What is the difference between Blackwater and the Government?
Alright, I'm outta here. Later.
Knight_of_BAAWA: Jacob Bloom:You are either really really really dense, or you really don't read what I write.Neither. Despite your protestations to the contrary, you believe in might makes right, not might makes possible. You can lie to yourself all you want, but you're not fooling anyone but yourself.
I don't concern myself with what's right or wrong, because these things are irrelevant. All that matters is what happens. And might can make things happen. Without might, you cannot make things happen, therefore you are irrelevant.
Anarchist Cain: Jacob Bloom: I trust the people in government more than I would trust some crazy powerful private defense contractor who could destroy everything with no opposition if it wanted to. It's not that I totally trust the government, I just trust it more than I would trust an unrestricted Blackwater. Then I have to ask you this. What is the difference between Blackwater and the Government?
One is restrained by the other.
Jacob Bloom: Anarchist Cain: Jacob Bloom: I trust the people in government more than I would trust some crazy powerful private defense contractor who could destroy everything with no opposition if it wanted to. It's not that I totally trust the government, I just trust it more than I would trust an unrestricted Blackwater. Then I have to ask you this. What is the difference between Blackwater and the Government? One is restrained by the other.
So here you are terrified by the idea of Blackwater running around committing wars, enforcing paid rules and destroying violators...yet the institution you see as the solution has even MORE power then this organzation you are fearful of.
Jacob Bloom: Daniel: Jacob Bloom: Daniel: Jacob Bloom: The other thing about "corrupt courts will get pushed out of business" is that...those courts will still be ruling in favor of someone! So they won't go out of business, criminals will just go to those specific courts to get their charges dismissed. Hell, I'd open a court and just let people know I'd rule in favor of whatever is illegal. And then all the criminals will come to me and I'll have tons of business. This is a good idea actually. Ok, start your anarchist society, I will be opening the "Court for Criminals" Even if this were true or ever happened, how is the state better? Also, would a court that sided with the non-criminals also have a lot a business? The state is better because the US Supreme Court's ruling is final. There is nowhere else you can go after the US Supreme Court. The issue is finalized, if you don't adhere to its rulings, you will face serious consequences. Everyone knows that, so the SC's rulings get honored. Yes, the non criminal court would have business, my court would too. Then we'd have a war over whose rulings were to be enforced. It would all come down to who could afford the better PDA. I'd imagine that all the non criminals would be broke because the criminals would have taken everything from them, so I think we'd get the better army. In the mean time, criminals would still be free to roam around committing crimes and you'd have chaos. How is the US Supreme Court's ruling final? What if I decide to not abide by it and flee to a non-extradition country? Jacob Bloom: Daniel: Jacob Bloom: Daniel: Jacob Bloom:Ok, If there is no final arbiter then the laws are ultimately unenforceable and everyone will know that, not just the really smart ones. 1) Whose laws?2) Why would laws be unenforcable? Jacob Bloom:By perfectly civilized beings I mean...like...that humans would be able to be like angels. Just purely benevolent creatures who act totally rationally and with the luxury of infinite time. This is not our situation. Which Austrian economists described humans as "angels", as benevolent, and as having "the luxury of infinite time"? Jacob Bloom:Lol, if you could force me to read this stuff, you'd probably be more likely to convince me and get what you want, but this goes against your creed. Which is ironic. As you can imagine, someone else might not be so scrupulous. Yes, it was supposed to be ironic. It was a pun towards you. Lol. Jacob Bloom:2. A private law system has not existed in a developed country because it's such a ridiculous idea, no one even wants to try it. I mean think about what happens if you're wrong. Free markets can be tried with much less risk. So we've tried them, they mostly work. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lex_mercatoria Is it okay if I link to Wikipedia? 1. a.) Will you not have national laws? So basically...you'll have little local laws? Ok, so I break your laws, I go somewhere else, nothing happens to me, right? b.) Because if I don't like what Court A says, I can just go to Court B. If they rule in favor of me, I'll just say I'm abiding by Court B's ruling. With no final arbiter, there's no way you can make me adhere to Court A's ruling. 2. I dunno, but that's the way you seem to think of people in markets and in courts. Like they are angels with infinite amounts of time to make the optimal decision for themselves. This is not how it works. 3. So are there differences between the time when Lex Mercatoria worked and now? Has the complexity of the market changed? What about how many people playing in it? What happened when someone refused to adhere to a Lex Mercatoria ruling? National laws imply a nation. What nation would there be? Also, the arbiter doesn't enforce anything, the enforcers do. Concerning number 2, I can haz proof? Concerning number 3, I only linked to the website to disprove your claim. Jacob Bloom: Knight_of_BAAWA: Jacob Bloom:Do you know what Blackwater is?Yes: a fully-owned subsidiary corporation of the United States Federal Government. No, Blackwater is a private security contractor. They get most of their contracts from the US government but they are still privately owned and operated. What is the difference between a person who works for the government as a soldier and a company that works for the government as an army? 1. You brought up Lex Mercatoria like that's your model for a private legal system. Apparently, it didn't last for very long and it existed during a time when trade was very different from the way it is now. So it's non applicable. 2. The company can choose who it fights and when and under what conditions. Because it's private. 1) It is not necessarily my model for a private legal system. I already told you why I brought it up. 2) No it doesn't It is under orders of the US government. Jacob, you have been consistently disproven by many of us. We could care less if you decide to stop arguing with us. You're like target practice. Thanks for the help. 1. What's your model then? You brought up some antiquated system to show me that once, for a brief period of time a long time ago, it almost worked except didn't? 2. No, it is private, it has no obligation to take whatever contracts it's given, Blackwater chooses what it wants to do. That's what it means to be a private organization. 3. I haven't been disproven by any of you. I'm not arguing, I'm asking questions. I get lackluster answers to those questions which leads me to believe either a.) you guys don't even really understand what you're saying or haven't thought it through or b.) you know it doesn't work but it makes you feel good to talk about anarchy so you do. I'm more inclined to believe B, because the reaction I've gotten to a lot of my questions is basically something akin to cognitive dissonance. You just try not to think about it. I understand. But I am urging you to fight the seductiveness and temptation of ivory tower ideology and instead find some comfort in realism. The government will never ever be dissolved. You know it, I know it. Instead of fighting a pointless fight, let's fight for something we can actually change: the scope and relative size of the government. We can win that war, not the one you're fighting. Anyways, I'm hungry, gonna go get something to eat, talk to you guys later.
1) Your hasty generalizations are so easy to disprove, that I was able to do it with an antiquated example. Lol.
2) When Blackwater accepts money from the government, it has promised to be under orders of the US government. You do know what a contract is, right? If Blackwater didn't do what the US government wanted it to do, then the US government would no longer use its serives.
3) Are you capable of writing a sentence without making a hasty generalization or commiting any other fallacy? You also made claims. Most of your claims have been disproven. Questions can't be disproven. Rest of your rant: fallacies after fallacies.
Jacob Bloom:I don't concern myself with what's right or wrong, because these things are irrelevant. All that matters is what happens. And might can make things happen. Without might, you cannot make things happen, therefore you are irrelevant.
Yes, we know you think that. That is why your claims about libertarianism being utopian don't make any sense. I addressed this in my second post to you.
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."
Jacob Bloom:I don't concern myself with what's right or wrong
I see that you missed one of my posts again, Jacob Bloom.
Jacob Bloom:It's not fallacious. They're mercs. They'd enforce whatever rules you paid them to in your society or any other.
The private enforcement agencies would merely enforce the laws of the arbitration agency that hired them. Therefore, if you want to assess action, then you should focus on the possible laws of the arbitration agencies.
Here is the original post:
The actions of Blackwater are a mirror of the laws of the clients of Blackwater. The chief client of Blackwater is the US government. Therefore, your question "are these the people we want watching over us?" is actually an argument against the current US government.
Thank you for the support.
Alright, so forget what I think. I'm just one man. I have my ideas you have yours. It's whatever.
Someone tell me about the anarchist battle plan. How is the anarchist society going to get started? Who's going to start it?
I. Ryan: Jacob Bloom:It's not fallacious. They're mercs. They'd enforce whatever rules you paid them to in your society or any other. The private enforcement agencies would merely enforce the laws of the arbitration agency that hired them. Therefore, if you want to assess action, then you should focus on the possible laws of the arbitration agencies. Here is the original post: I. Ryan: Jacob Bloom:I never said it was a private arbitration agency. I said it was a private enforcer. Blackwater is exactly what is meant by a PDA. Now ask yourselves: "are these the people we want watching over us?" The actions of Blackwater coincide with the enforcement of the laws of the public arbitration agencies (i.e., the states) that hire it. Therefore, it is fallicious to claim that the actions of Blackwater are analogous to the expected actions of a private enforcer in an anarchocapitalist society. The actions of Blackwater are a mirror of the laws of the clients of Blackwater. The chief client of Blackwater is the US government. Therefore, your question "are these the people we want watching over us?" is actually an argument against the current US government. Thank you for the support.
Yes, they are contracted by the US Government, but they are a private institution based in North Carolina. If there were no military, Blackwater would probably just take over NC. And yes, I do want the US Government watching over me, just with a few changes. That's all.
Knight_of_BAAWA: Jacob Bloom:I don't concern myself with what's right or wrongBut you do. You're merely fooling yourself.
No, I concern myself with reality. I don't care about morality. I care about power and who has it and what they're going to do with it. This is what principally concerns me.
Jacob Bloom: Alright, so forget what I think. I'm just one man. I have my ideas you have yours. It's whatever. Someone tell me about the anarchist battle plan. How is the anarchist society going to get started? Who's going to start it?
How is the state going to protect the rights of the people without first violating the rights of the people? Oh, that is right! I cannot.
Daniel,
1. I do not believe you have proven or disproven anything, except how bad you hate the way things are now. Which I can relate to.
2. If Blackwater doesn't want to take a contract, it goes somewhere else. Blackwater has no obligation to the US.
3. It's not a fallacy to assert that you want something so bad you are willing to overlook problems and are thus more likely to get angry when someone asks a question that points out that problem.
Jacob Bloom:No, I concern myself with reality.
Daniel: Jacob Bloom: Alright, so forget what I think. I'm just one man. I have my ideas you have yours. It's whatever. Someone tell me about the anarchist battle plan. How is the anarchist society going to get started? Who's going to start it? How is the state going to protect the rights of the people without first violating the rights of the people? Oh, that is right! I cannot.
This does not answer my question.
Jacob Bloom:Yes, they are contracted by the US Government, but they are a private institution based in North Carolina. If there were no military, Blackwater would probably just take over NC. And yes, I do want the US Government watching over me, just with a few changes. That's all.
You want the monopolized arbitration agency of the US territory to "watch[] over you"; but, you do not want one of its powerful military arms (videlicet, Blackwater) to help to "watch[] over you"? Interesting.
Knight_of_BAAWA: Jacob Bloom:No, I concern myself with reality.Not according to the strawmen you create and solely-malevolent attributions you give to all humans.
I have never said humans are malevolent. Nor do I create strawmen. Power makes possible. So we need to ask ourselves "who do we want to have power and what will they do with it?"
You say you want private defense agencies to have power, I honestly don't think that's a good idea.
I. Ryan: Jacob Bloom:Yes, they are contracted by the US Government, but they are a private institution based in North Carolina. If there were no military, Blackwater would probably just take over NC. And yes, I do want the US Government watching over me, just with a few changes. That's all. You want the monopolized arbitration agency of the US territory to "watch[] over you"; but, you do not want one of its powerful military arms (videlicet, Blackwater) to help to "watch[] over you"? Interesting.
If Blackwater thought it would be profitable, they would take over the whole country. Without someone to stop them, we would all be screwed.
Jacob Bloom:I have never said humans are malevolent. Nor do I create strawmen. Power makes possible. So we need to ask ourselves "who do we want to have power and what will they do with it?" You say you want private defense agencies to have power, I honestly don't think that's a good idea.
If it were your choice, would you advocate the monopolization of the food industry? That is, would you advocate that one of the major food producers become a monopoly?
Jacob Bloom: Daniel, 1. I do not believe you have proven or disproven anything, except how bad you hate the way things are now. Which I can relate to. 2. If Blackwater doesn't want to take a contract, it goes somewhere else. Blackwater has no obligation to the US. 3. It's not a fallacy to assert that you want something so bad you are willing to overlook problems and are thus more likely to get angry when someone asks a question that points out that problem.
Jacob,
1) Sources?
2) Again, the obligations come from the cotract is has agreed to, not beforehand.
3) So what? All of that is irrelevant to the issue. As an example, you said that Austrian economists believe that humans are angels. Then, I asked you which ones have claimed that. Then you said that I imply that, but you haven't cited or proved that I have. In this example, you have commited at least a strawman, and a hasty generalization.
Jacob Bloom:If Blackwater thought it would be profitable, they would take over the whole country. Without someone to stop them, we would all be screwed.
Indeed. That is how I feel about the current monopolized arbitration agency of the 'US' territory (i.e., the US government).
Jacob Bloom:You say you want private defense agencies to have power, I honestly don't think that's a good idea.
You want something that has more power and greater reach to have that power. Hence your contradiction.
Jacob Bloom: Daniel: Jacob Bloom: Alright, so forget what I think. I'm just one man. I have my ideas you have yours. It's whatever. Someone tell me about the anarchist battle plan. How is the anarchist society going to get started? Who's going to start it? How is the state going to protect the rights of the people without first violating the rights of the people? Oh, that is right! I cannot. This does not answer my question.
It's not supposed to. Anyway, our system may be difficult to achieve, but your's is self-contradictory.
Daniel: Jacob Bloom: Daniel, 1. I do not believe you have proven or disproven anything, except how bad you hate the way things are now. Which I can relate to. 2. If Blackwater doesn't want to take a contract, it goes somewhere else. Blackwater has no obligation to the US. 3. It's not a fallacy to assert that you want something so bad you are willing to overlook problems and are thus more likely to get angry when someone asks a question that points out that problem. Jacob, 1) Sources? 2) Again, the obligations come from the cotract is has agreed to, not beforehand. 3) So what? All of that is irrelevant to the issue. As an example, you said that Austrian economists believe that humans are angels. Then, I asked you which ones have claimed that. Then you said that I imply that, but you haven't cited or proved that I have. In this example, you have commited at least a strawman, and a hasty generalization.
1. For what?
2. Right. So once a contract has been fulfilled, they are not obligated to take on anymore.
3. Ugh. I don't understand how you could think private courts will work unless you think men are angels. It doesn't make sense. Without a final arbiter, no one will adhere to anyone's rulings. It would be like you telling me right now that I owe you a million dollars. I say no. Then what?
Anarchist Cain: Jacob Bloom:You say you want private defense agencies to have power, I honestly don't think that's a good idea. You want something that has more power and greater reach to have that power. Hence your contradiction.
Power is not the only thing to consider. Motivation is another. Why would the US government want to take over its own people with the military?
Daniel: Jacob Bloom: Daniel: Jacob Bloom: Alright, so forget what I think. I'm just one man. I have my ideas you have yours. It's whatever. Someone tell me about the anarchist battle plan. How is the anarchist society going to get started? Who's going to start it? How is the state going to protect the rights of the people without first violating the rights of the people? Oh, that is right! I cannot. This does not answer my question. It's not supposed to. Anyway, our system may be difficult to achieve, but your's is self-contradictory.
Stop worrying about me. Worry about you. How are you going to make it happen? By telling people like me we're immoral beasts?
Jacob Bloom:Why would the US government want to take over its own people with the military?
Why would a private military want to take over its own customers?
I. Ryan: Jacob Bloom:If Blackwater thought it would be profitable, they would take over the whole country. Without someone to stop them, we would all be screwed. Indeed. That is how I feel about the current monopolized arbitration agency of the 'US' territory (i.e., the US government).
Well, you should leave if you feel your safety is being jeopardized because the US government isn't going anywhere.
Anarchist Cain: Jacob Bloom:Why would the US government want to take over its own people with the military? Why would a private military want to take over its own customers?
Answer mine first. Why would the government do such a thing?
Jacob Bloom:Well, you should leave if you feel your safety is being jeopardized because the US government isn't going anywhere.
Interesting evasion. As an answer to your irrelevant response, the 'US' territory is currently one of the safer territories. However, I may heed your advice at some point in the future.
Jacob Bloom: Daniel: Jacob Bloom: Daniel, 1. I do not believe you have proven or disproven anything, except how bad you hate the way things are now. Which I can relate to. 2. If Blackwater doesn't want to take a contract, it goes somewhere else. Blackwater has no obligation to the US. 3. It's not a fallacy to assert that you want something so bad you are willing to overlook problems and are thus more likely to get angry when someone asks a question that points out that problem. Jacob, 1) Sources? 2) Again, the obligations come from the cotract is has agreed to, not beforehand. 3) So what? All of that is irrelevant to the issue. As an example, you said that Austrian economists believe that humans are angels. Then, I asked you which ones have claimed that. Then you said that I imply that, but you haven't cited or proved that I have. In this example, you have commited at least a strawman, and a hasty generalization. 1. For what? 2. Right. So once a contract has been fulfilled, they are not obligated to take on anymore. 3. Ugh. I don't understand how you could think private courts will work unless you think men are angels. It doesn't make sense. Without a final arbiter, no one will adhere to anyone's rulings. It would be like you telling me right now that I owe you a million dollars. I say no. Then what?
1) Since you asked that, now I want sources for everything you have claimed in this thread.
2) Yes. Now you are getting the hang of it.
3) That fact that there would be courts implies that humans are not angels. Else, why would we have courts? If the Supreme Court says I owe you a billion dollars, but instead of paying, I flee to a non-extradition country, then what?