Jacob Bloom:Why would the government do such a thing?
Subjugation, preventing rebellion.
'Men do not change, they unmask themselves' - Germaine de Stael
Daniel: 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?
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?
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.
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.
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?
1. It's not worth it. You won't read them.
2. So they're not forced to do anything.
3. Courts are just buildings, without the power to enforce their rulings, they are useless. You can leave, but then you don't live here anymore. As long as you choose to live here, you will be obligated to pay me. However, under your system, I could just stick around and get a new ruling because...there's no final arbiter.
Anarchist Cain: Jacob Bloom:Why would the government do such a thing? Subjugation, preventing rebellion.
Who is going to rebel?
Slightly off topic, but can I ask what percentage of people (estimate) do you think would commit violence against others in the absence of law?
Jacob Bloom:Who is going to rebel?
Those with the desire to. I answered your question, time you answered mine.
I. Ryan: 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: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.
Do you think it's a coincidence that the US is one of the safer territories?
And yes, if you left and could get what you wanted elsewhere, that would seem to be the smartest thing to do.
Jacob Bloom: 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?
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.
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?
Who says it never has?
Jacob Bloom: 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?
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.
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.
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.
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?
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?
I'm not worrying about you. (another flase claim by you). How you are going to make your's non-self-contradictory?
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."
MatthewF: Jacob, Slightly off topic, but can I ask what percentage of people (estimate) do you think would commit violence against others in the absence of law?
I dunno. Probably 80-90 percent.
Jacob Bloom: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: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:You say you want private defense agencies to have power, I honestly don't think that's a good idea....If Blackwater thought it would be profitable, they would take over the whole country. Without someone to stop them, we would all be screwed.
Daniel: Jacob Bloom: 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? Who says it never has? Jacob Bloom: 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? I'm not worrying about you. (another flase claim by you). How you are going to make your's non-self-contradictory?
1. When has the government ever taken over and created a totalitarian state?
2. Self contradictory or not is irrelevant. You are going to be forced to obey the law of the land unless you can think of an alternative. What is your alternative?
Jacob Bloom:No, I concern myself with reality.
Knight_of_BAAWA:Not according to the strawmen you create and solely-malevolent attributions you give to all humans.
Jacob Bloom:I have never said humans are malevolent.
MatthewF:Jacob, Slightly off topic, but can I ask what percentage of people (estimate) do you think would commit violence against others in the absence of law?
Jacob Bloom:I dunno. Probably 80-90 percent.
If that's not attributing malevolence to humans, I don't know what is.
Jacob Bloom:Nor do I create strawmen.
Jacob Bloom:Power makes possible.
Jacob Bloom: So we need to ask ourselves "who do we want to have power and what will they do with it?"
Jacob Bloom: Daniel: 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? 1. It's not worth it. You won't read them. 2. So they're not forced to do anything. 3. Courts are just buildings, without the power to enforce their rulings, they are useless. You can leave, but then you don't live here anymore. As long as you choose to live here, you will be obligated to pay me. However, under your system, I could just stick around and get a new ruling because...there's no final arbiter.
1) I will at least read some, depending on how extensive your list is.
2) Not unless they receive money from the government.
3) So what your are saying is that you want a bunch of state-own buildings? Lol. Also, what if I am really good at hiding and you never find me? If I leave, you'll never receive the justice you wanted/deserved.
Jacob Bloom:Do you think it's a coincidence that the US is one of the safer territories?
Tex2002ans: Jacob Bloom:I care about power and who has it and what they're going to do with it. This is what principally concerns me.Then you wouldn't give it to a monopoly, and force everyone in a given area to be under it whether they like it or not. Jacob Bloom: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.Because many of these "problems" would be solved if you just read a little of the literature and thought for yourself. Really, just apply the same logic you use in other industries (food, computers, books, coffee shops, etc.) to courts and police. I would recommend reading the example in For A New Liberty about the government shoe industry since time immemorial as well (Chapter 10). Jacob Bloom:You say you want private defense agencies to have power, I honestly don't think that's a good idea....If Blackwater thought it would be profitable, they would take over the whole country. Without someone to stop them, we would all be screwed.If you give the government a monopoly, who will stop the government? You are saying you will try to use the government to take power away from itself, which will not happen. We say don't give them the monopoly powers in the first place. If a PDA becomes too aggressive and criminal, they will go out of business (due to extremely high costs), and more peaceful ones which satisfy the consumers wants will take their place.This is why we advocate "no rulers"... thus the title anarchism. Competitive courts would follow what the people want, which is protection of property... war/violence is uneconomical, as I have stated multiple times already.
1. Yes, I would, if I thought the right people were in charge.
2. The same logic does not apply to courts and police. They aren't selling anything, they are upholding rules. Unilateral rules. Free markets won't work with laws.
3. War and violence are not uneconomical under all circumstances. Sometimes they are, sometimes they aren't. Your private defense companies will just take over everything. That's what I think. But how about this: how about you start an anarchist society and show everyone how awesome it would be? Problem solved, I won't have anything to argue about anymore.
Knight_of_BAAWA: Jacob Bloom:Do you think it's a coincidence that the US is one of the safer territories?Safe for whom? Certainly not the citizens who have to deal with the government thugs every day.
Safe for me. For the most part. Enough to make me want to stay here and play by the rules. I could leave if I wanted to, but I love America, I'm not going anywhere.
Seriously, why are we arguing about this? Why don't you just tell me what you think I should do to have an anarchist society and I will tell you whether or not I'm willing to do what you think I should.
Jacob Bloom:1. Yes, I would, if I thought the right people were in charge.
Jacob Bloom:2. The same logic does not apply to courts and police. They aren't selling anything, they are upholding rules. Unilateral rules. Free markets won't work with laws.
Jacob Bloom:3. War and violence are not uneconomical under all circumstances.
Jacob Bloom: Daniel: Jacob Bloom: 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? Who says it never has? Jacob Bloom: 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? I'm not worrying about you. (another flase claim by you). How you are going to make your's non-self-contradictory? 1. When has the government ever taken over and [irrelevent]? 2. Self contradictory or not is irrelevant. You are going to be forced to obey the law of the land unless you can think of an alternative. What is your alternative?
1. When has the government ever taken over and [irrelevent]?
1) World War II is one example.
2) Why is it irrelevent? Because it defeats your argument?
Jacob Bloom:Safe for me.
Knight_of_BAAWA: Jacob Bloom:1. Yes, I would, if I thought the right people were in charge.Socialists have the same whine when you tell them that socialism doesn't work. They think it requires "the right people. Jacob Bloom:2. The same logic does not apply to courts and police. They aren't selling anything, they are upholding rules. Unilateral rules. Free markets won't work with laws.Of course they will. There's no reason at all that it wouldn't. Jacob Bloom:3. War and violence are not uneconomical under all circumstances.War always is. And you need to show that the PDAs will take over everything. Remember: you said that you do not attribute malevolence to humans, so I had better NOT see you say anything even remotely looking like "They have the power, so they will do it".
1. Well, they are never going to find the right people because they don't exist. There are good conservatives who can run this nation properly. And they don't change their policies like liberals do.
2. No, they won't. They won't because profit and loss are not relevant to laws. Do or do not is what laws are about.
3. Opportunism is not malevolence. If they see an opportunity, they'll take it. I don't need to show anything, by the way. You're the ones that hate the current system. I like it. Except for the nanny state programs. But they don't work, so they'll disappear eventually.
Jacob Bloom: Seriously, why are we arguing about this? Why don't you just tell me what you think I should do to have an anarchist society and I will tell you whether or not I'm willing to do what you think I should.
Refresh your memory as to how this argument started.
Daniel: Jacob Bloom: Daniel: Jacob Bloom: 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? Who says it never has? Jacob Bloom: 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? I'm not worrying about you. (another flase claim by you). How you are going to make your's non-self-contradictory? 1. When has the government ever taken over and [irrelevent]? 2. Self contradictory or not is irrelevant. You are going to be forced to obey the law of the land unless you can think of an alternative. What is your alternative? 1) World War II is one example. 2) Why is it irrelevent? Because it defeats your argument?
1. Nonsense.
2. It's irrelevant because for a system to exist, it just needs to power to sustain itself. It doesn't have to be logically consistent. It just has to have power. You need power. You claim to be logically consistent, but it doesn't matter because you haven't the power to enforce your will. So your philosophy has no effect. I mean...right now the Austrian explanation for the housing bubble is being largely ignored, why do you think that is?
Daniel: Jacob Bloom: Seriously, why are we arguing about this? Why don't you just tell me what you think I should do to have an anarchist society and I will tell you whether or not I'm willing to do what you think I should. Refresh your memory as to how this argument started.
Tell me what you think I should do.
Jacob Bloom: I like it. Except for the nanny state programs. But they don't work, so they'll disappear eventually.
Jacob, if the current system is so great, why do we have out-of-court settlements, arbitration, and mediation? Why do we have private security firms?
Knight_of_BAAWA: Jacob Bloom:Safe for me.Ah, a sample size of 1. Too bad that's not a good sample size when dealing with government thugs.
1 isn't enough to deal with anyone.
Daniel: Jacob Bloom: I like it. Except for the nanny state programs. But they don't work, so they'll disappear eventually. Jacob, if the current system is so great, why do we have out-of-court settlements, arbitration, and mediation? Why do we have private security firms?
Because they act in the shadow of the law.
Jacob Bloom:1. Well, they are never going to find the right people because they don't exist.
Jacob Bloom:There are good conservatives who can run this nation properly.
Jacob Bloom:2. No, they won't.
Jacob Bloom:3. Opportunism is not malevolence.
Jacob Bloom: Daniel: Jacob Bloom: Daniel: Jacob Bloom: 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? Who says it never has? Jacob Bloom: 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? I'm not worrying about you. (another flase claim by you). How you are going to make your's non-self-contradictory? 1. When has the government ever taken over and [irrelevent]? 2. Self contradictory or not is irrelevant. You are going to be forced to obey the law of the land unless you can think of an alternative. What is your alternative? 1) World War II is one example. 2) Why is it irrelevent? Because it defeats your argument? 1. Nonsense. 2. It's irrelevant because for a system to exist, it just needs to power to sustain itself. It doesn't have to be logically consistent. It just has to have power. You need power. You claim to be logically consistent, but it doesn't matter because you haven't the power to enforce your will. So your philosophy has no effect. I mean...right now the Austrian explanation for the housing bubble is being largely ignored, why do you think that is?
1) I can haz sources, proof or evidence?
2) Who said your system couldn't exist? (another strawman). Right, almost everyone in this thread knows that you're wrong about almost everything. Why do you think that is? Lol.
Jacob Bloom:1 isn't enough to deal with anyone.
Jacob Bloom: Daniel: Jacob Bloom: I like it. Except for the nanny state programs. But they don't work, so they'll disappear eventually. Jacob, if the current system is so great, why do we have out-of-court settlements, arbitration, and mediation? Why do we have private security firms? Because they act in the shadow of the law.
Please clarify.
Ahhh the good old "if only the right people were in charge"
Sure it does, they are upholding the protection of property, and helping get reparations for damages done. You just think that the government should have a shoe monopoly, because you cannot conceive of an idea of how it would work, since the government has done it since time immemorial.
Jacob Bloom:3. War and violence are not uneconomical under all circumstances. Sometimes they are, sometimes they aren't. Your private defense companies will just take over everything. That's what I think. But how about this: how about you start an anarchist society and show everyone how awesome it would be? Problem solved, I won't have anything to argue about anymore.
So if I hire a bodyguard to protect me, the bodyguard will take over my house/belongings? No. I hire them to PROTECT me/my property... If they do not do their job, they go out of business. The same applies to a PDA, I hire them to protect my property... they will not barge into my house and steal my things, or else I will take my monthly payments elsewhere (and once other customers find out, they will as change PDAs as well).
Knight_of_BAAWA: Jacob Bloom:1. Well, they are never going to find the right people because they don't exist.And that applies to your view as well. Jacob Bloom:There are good conservatives who can run this nation properly.No, there are not. I'm always reminded of Jonathan Edwards' song "Sunshine" for the lyric "He can't even run his own life; I'll be damned if he'll run mine". Jacob Bloom:2. No, they won't.They have in the past, so it seems history (and economics) overrules you. Jacob Bloom:3. Opportunism is not malevolence.It's not opportunism.
1. I disagree.
2. I think there are. I'll vote for them.
3. When? How?
4. It's an opportunity, they see it, they take it. End of story. Not malevolence, just being smart.
Tex2002ans: Jacob Bloom:1. Yes, I would, if I thought the right people were in charge. Ahhh the good old "if only the right people were in charge" Jacob Bloom:2. The same logic does not apply to courts and police. They aren't selling anything, they are upholding rules. Unilateral rules. Free markets won't work with laws. Sure it does, they are upholding the protection of property, and helping get reparations for damages done. You just think that the government should have a shoe monopoly, because you cannot conceive of an idea of how it would work, since the government has done it since time immemorial. Jacob Bloom:3. War and violence are not uneconomical under all circumstances. Sometimes they are, sometimes they aren't. Your private defense companies will just take over everything. That's what I think. But how about this: how about you start an anarchist society and show everyone how awesome it would be? Problem solved, I won't have anything to argue about anymore. So if I hire a bodyguard to protect me, the bodyguard will take over my house/belongings? No. I hire them to PROTECT me/my property... If they do not do their job, they go out of business. The same applies to a PDA, I hire them to protect my property... they will not barge into my house and steal my things, or else I will take my monthly payments elsewhere (and once other customers find out, they will as change PDAs as well).
1. There are people who can get the job done and people who can't. I try to find the people who can.
2. If you can't enforce the laws, property rights will disappear. Without a final arbiter, there will be no property rights.
3. Yes, the bodyguard will kill you and take everything you get the first chance he sees to do it. Guaranteed. If you try to take your monthly payments elsewhere, they'll break into your house and take your money. Like the mafia.
Daniel: Jacob Bloom: Daniel: Jacob Bloom: I like it. Except for the nanny state programs. But they don't work, so they'll disappear eventually. Jacob, if the current system is so great, why do we have out-of-court settlements, arbitration, and mediation? Why do we have private security firms? Because they act in the shadow of the law. Please clarify.
With the understanding that if they can't settle their disputes privately, they have the option to go to the actual court.
Daniel: Jacob Bloom: Daniel: Jacob Bloom: Daniel: Jacob Bloom: 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? Who says it never has? Jacob Bloom: 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? I'm not worrying about you. (another flase claim by you). How you are going to make your's non-self-contradictory? 1. When has the government ever taken over and [irrelevent]? 2. Self contradictory or not is irrelevant. You are going to be forced to obey the law of the land unless you can think of an alternative. What is your alternative? 1) World War II is one example. 2) Why is it irrelevent? Because it defeats your argument? 1. Nonsense. 2. It's irrelevant because for a system to exist, it just needs to power to sustain itself. It doesn't have to be logically consistent. It just has to have power. You need power. You claim to be logically consistent, but it doesn't matter because you haven't the power to enforce your will. So your philosophy has no effect. I mean...right now the Austrian explanation for the housing bubble is being largely ignored, why do you think that is? 1) I can haz sources, proof or evidence? 2) Who said your system couldn't exist? (another strawman). Right, almost everyone in this thread knows that you're wrong about almost everything. Why do you think that is? Lol.
You are outnumbered and overpowered, no one really cares what you guys think, I'm just trying to be charitable.
Knight_of_BAAWA: Jacob Bloom:1 isn't enough to deal with anyone.Not when you're trying to apply it to the whole as a blanket-statement.
I'm not. But I know my will can be enforced because there are lots of people who think just like I do.
So why don't they simply go to the state court? Isn't it better?
Jacob Bloom: Daniel: Jacob Bloom: Daniel: Jacob Bloom: Daniel: Jacob Bloom: 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? Who says it never has? Jacob Bloom: 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? I'm not worrying about you. (another flase claim by you). How you are going to make your's non-self-contradictory? 1. When has the government ever taken over and [irrelevent]? 2. Self contradictory or not is irrelevant. You are going to be forced to obey the law of the land unless you can think of an alternative. What is your alternative? 1) World War II is one example. 2) Why is it irrelevent? Because it defeats your argument? 1. Nonsense. 2. It's irrelevant because for a system to exist, it just needs to power to sustain itself. It doesn't have to be logically consistent. It just has to have power. You need power. You claim to be logically consistent, but it doesn't matter because you haven't the power to enforce your will. So your philosophy has no effect. I mean...right now the Austrian explanation for the housing bubble is being largely ignored, why do you think that is? 1) I can haz sources, proof or evidence? 2) Who said your system couldn't exist? (another strawman). Right, almost everyone in this thread knows that you're wrong about almost everything. Why do you think that is? Lol. You are outnumbered and overpowered, no one really cares what you guys think, I'm just trying to be charitable.
Thanks. I appreciate the target practice.
Jacob Bloom:1. I disagree.
Jacob Bloom:2. I think there are. I'll vote for them.
Jacob Bloom:3. When? How?
Jacob Bloom:4. It's an opportunity
Daniel: So why don't they simply go to the state court? Isn't it better?
Better in the sense that it's final. But more risky. So there's a trade off to settling out of court. Because you could get more from an actual ruling but then again you might lose. People who settle out of court figure the counterparty just wants to make the case go away quietly.