Jacob Bloom:1. There are people who can get the job done and people who can't. I try to find the people who can.
You would be free to find the people you think do it best when you choose your own PDA, and everyone else can find people who they think protects their property the best. Everyone wins, and no one has to be forced under anyone else's will.
Jacob Bloom:2. If you can't enforce the laws, property rights will disappear. Without a final arbiter, there will be no property rights.
Wrong.
Jacob Bloom: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.
Make sure no one ever hires bodyguards any more. This is astounding, I can't actually believe you hold such a view. Why does Walmart not bust into your house and steal your money? Why does McDonalds not? Or any business for that matter. Because they will go out of business if they do.
I know what your excuse already will be though, you will say "They aren't the a bussiness to enforce laws" or "they don't have power like a bodyguard" or something along those lines. Just coming up with excuse after excuse to somehow make "law" a special business which needs government monopoly.
What else do you think the government should have monopolies over? Roads? Firemen? Food? Water? Health Care? Clothing? Computers?
Jacob Bloom:I'm not. But I know my will can be enforced because there are lots of people who think just like I do.
I'm saying this just to be helpful, nothing more: I don't think this is the place for you. I am not saying this as a moderator. I simply don't think this place is a good fit for you. A neo-con board would be more to your liking, I think.
Knight_of_BAAWA: Jacob Bloom:1. I disagree.Feel free. You won't be correct, though. Jacob Bloom:2. I think there are. I'll vote for them.You're deluding yourself. Jacob Bloom:3. When? How?Law merchants. Look it up. Jacob Bloom:4. It's an opportunityNo, it's malevolence. And you border on being a sociopath.
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
1. Who decides what's correct and incorrect anyways, know what I mean?
2. Maybe. I don't think so.
3. Alright.
4. It's not malevolence. They're not doing it just to harm others, but mainly to help themselves. I'm no sociopath. I just understand people.
Knight_of_BAAWA: Jacob Bloom:2. If you can't enforce the laws, property rights will disappear. Without a final arbiter, there will be no property rights.Nonsense doubly so.
How can a right exist if no one can uphold it?
Knight_of_BAAWA: Jacob Bloom:I'm not. But I know my will can be enforced because there are lots of people who think just like I do.You are, and you just again stated might makes right. I'm saying this just to be helpful, nothing more: I don't think this is the place for you. I am not saying this as a moderator. I simply don't think this place is a good fit for you. A neo-con board would be more to your liking, I think.
No, I said what happens is what happens. Right and wrong are irrelevant.
Neo-cons are a bunch of jesus freaks. I'm an athiest.
Jacob Bloom:1. Who decides what's correct and incorrect anyways, know what I mean?
Jacob Bloom:2. Maybe. I don't think so.
Jacob Bloom:4. It's not malevolence. They're not doing it just to harm others, but mainly to help themselves. I'm no sociopath. I just understand people.
Jacob Bloom:No, I said what happens is what happens. Right and wrong are irrelevant.
Jacob Bloom:Neo-cons are a bunch of jesus freaks. I'm an athiest.
Jacob Bloom: 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.
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,
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.
Would you include yourself in that number?
Jacob Bloom:How can a right exist if no one can uphold it?
Tex2002ans: Jacob Bloom:1. There are people who can get the job done and people who can't. I try to find the people who can. You would be free to find the people you think do it best when you choose your own PDA, and everyone else can find people who they think protects their property the best. Everyone wins, and no one has to be forced under anyone else's will. Jacob Bloom:2. If you can't enforce the laws, property rights will disappear. Without a final arbiter, there will be no property rights. Wrong. Jacob Bloom: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. Make sure no one ever hires bodyguards any more. This is astounding, I can't actually believe you hold such a view. Why does Walmart not bust into your house and steal your money? Why does McDonalds not? Or any business for that matter. Because they will go out of business if they do. I know what your excuse already will be though, you will say "They aren't the a bussiness to enforce laws" or "they don't have power like a bodyguard" or something along those lines. Just coming up with excuse after excuse to somehow make "law" a special business which needs government monopoly. What else do you think the government should have monopolies over? Roads? Firemen? Food? Water? Health Care? Clothing? Computers?
1. That won't ever happen. You're always going to be forced to live under someone else's will. The question is "to what degree?"
2. With no arbiter, rights don't exist.
3. Because I could call the police. But they could still do it. They are doing pretty well selling...assorted whatever now. Yeah, your bodyguard will kill you if he thinks it's a better arrangement for him. And he'll know he's not going to go to jail for it because Bloom Court For Criminals will acquit him.
4. Just the law. Nothing else.
Jacob Bloom: 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.
Daniel: So why don't they simply go to the state court? Isn't it better?
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.
We already settled that it is not final, therefore, your conclusion that it is better does not follow. So you admit that a non-state-court can be better? I agree.
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 Bloom: 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. Would you include yourself in that number?
Sure, nothing special about me, I'm just another guy.
Daniel: Jacob Bloom: 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. We already settled that it is not final, therefore, your conclusion that it is better does not follow. So you admit that a non-state-court can be better? I agree.
I admit that it can be a better option under certain circumstances but that without the shadow of the law it would cease to exist. People wouldn't settle if they didn't think they had to.
Jacob Bloom:4. Just the law. Nothing else.
I think you forgot about the military as well. And the police. But then again, 80-90% of those people are evil corrupt people who will steal everything from you, so how can you trust them?
Tex2002ans: Jacob Bloom:4. Just the law. Nothing else. I think you forgot about the military as well. And the police. But then again, 80-90% of those people are evil corrupt people who will steal everything from you.
I think you forgot about the military as well. And the police. But then again, 80-90% of those people are evil corrupt people who will steal everything from you.
Not corrupt, just opportunists. If I don't give them the opportunity, they won't do it. And yes, the military. And the police. The state should be small in scope but it's role should be to embody force.
Knight_of_BAAWA: Jacob Bloom:How can a right exist if no one can uphold it?Who says no one can uphold it? And are you saying that slaves had no rights just because no one upheld them? What sort of flagrant non sequitur and begged question is that?
They didn't have rights. And then somebody fought for them and gave them rights. And now their rights are protected by the government. But no, they didn't always have rights.
Knight_of_BAAWA: Jacob Bloom:No, I said what happens is what happens. Right and wrong are irrelevant.You keep saying that, but you don't believe it. Jacob Bloom:Neo-cons are a bunch of jesus freaks. I'm an athiest.And yet your stance has a lot in common with them. Plus, I don't think an atheist would misspell "atheist".
1. I know it. Right and wrong have no effect on this world.
2. Only about the military. And you're right, I misspelled atheist. Good looking out. :)
Jacob Bloom:And yes, the military. And the police. The state should be small in scope but it's role should be to embody force.
But didn't you just mention you want government to have a monopoly over only the law? Perhaps you are not thinking through your answers thoroughly enough. Maybe you should take the time to sit back and relax because even you could probably see the contradictions you are making from not thinking enough before you answer.
Read a couple of chapters out of the literature, read a couple of articles, ponder about them, and then get back to posting some questions here if you need clarifications or want to express your ideas in some well thought out posts.
Tex2002ans: Jacob Bloom:And yes, the military. And the police. The state should be small in scope but it's role should be to embody force. But didn't you just mention you want government to have a monopoly over only the law? Perhaps you are not thinking through your answers thoroughly enough. Maybe you should take the time to sit back and relax because even you could probably see the contradictions you are making from not thinking enough before you answer. Read a couple of chapters out of the literature, read a couple of articles, ponder about them, and then get back to posting some questions here if you need clarifications or want to express your ideas in some well thought out posts.
I've been very clear about what I think. My answers are well thought out. I'm trying to answer like 8 different people at once. I'm going to leave a few things out here and there, mainly because I've been asked to answer the same questions over and over again. But whatever.
As far as the literature goes, I think it's pretty safe to say that my interest is totally gone as far as anarcho capitalism goes. I've been talking to these guys for two weeks and all I ever see when I ask "so what do we do now?" is: "YOU'RE A MORON, DON'T YOU UNDERSTAND THAT BEING ABLE TO ACT DOESN'T MATTER?!" or something like that. lol.
Jacob Bloom: MatthewF: Jacob Bloom: 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. Would you include yourself in that number? Sure, nothing special about me, I'm just another guy.
Assuming you aren't violent currently, what prevents you from being so?
MatthewF: Jacob Bloom: MatthewF: Jacob Bloom: 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. Would you include yourself in that number? Sure, nothing special about me, I'm just another guy. Assuming you aren't violent currently, what prevents you from being so?
I'm very very afraid of prison.
Jacob Bloom: MatthewF: Assuming you aren't violent currently, what prevents you from being so? I'm very very afraid of prison.
MatthewF: Assuming you aren't violent currently, what prevents you from being so?
Would you be afraid of going to prison in a libertarian society?
Jacob Bloom:They didn't have rights.
Jacob Bloom:I've been very clear about what I think. My answers are well thought out. I'm trying to answer like 8 different people at once.
You are overwhelming yourself by posting hundreds of posts a day. Perhaps if you posted one well thought out post to answer multiple questions, came back a couple hours later and let the dust settle, and then post another well thought out post. While I was typing my posts 10 new ones already popped up in which I had to include some of your new questions, answer those thoroughly, only to see 3 or 4 more posts by the time I was finished typing answers.
Your answers are not well thought out, because you contradict yourself many times, even in those past couple of posts, let alone the 600+ other ones you made in the past couple of weeks.
You bring up questions asking how this will work, how will that work, it would be best to read those two chapters I gave you (even better to read the whole book), read some of the articles. Many of your questions will be answered through your own thought process.
Jacob Bloom:I'm going to leave a few things out here and there, mainly because I've been asked to answer the same questions over and over again.
Because you keep making the same mistakes over and over and over again. This is why I recommend slowing down your posts, going to read, and then you won't have as many repeat questions asked to you over and over and over again.
Daniel: Jacob Bloom: I'm very very afraid of prison. Would you be afraid of going to prison in a libertarian society?
Jacob Bloom: I'm very very afraid of prison.
Jacob: Tell me about it, I just got out of jail and it was Fuct...
Daniel: You read my mind
Knight_of_BAAWA: Jacob Bloom:They didn't have rights.Yes, they did. That people were trampling on them didn't mean they didn't have them. If rights are given, rights can be taken away. And that's not....right. Privileges are given; rights are not.
What you're saying is only possible if some entity exists to enforce rights under any circumstance, which would mean God exists. I don't believe in God. I think that for humans to have rights, they have to be able to protect them and enforce them. Slaves had neither rights nor privileges. Now they do. God didn't give them those rights, men did. But they can be taken away again. Human rights are not inalienable unless there is a Creator. Is there a Creator?
Daniel: Jacob Bloom: MatthewF: Assuming you aren't violent currently, what prevents you from being so? I'm very very afraid of prison. Would you be afraid of going to prison in a libertarian society?
This is a weird question. Because the assumption is that I would ever go to prison. Or that anyone would ever go to prison in a libertarian society. But I don't think they would because they'd just keep going back and forth between private courts until they got the verdict they wanted.
Now someone would usually refer to the first several chapters of Rothbard's Ethics of Liberty to disprove that natural rights require a creator but frankly its just a waste of time with you.
'Men do not change, they unmask themselves' - Germaine de Stael
Tex2002ans: Jacob Bloom:I've been very clear about what I think. My answers are well thought out. I'm trying to answer like 8 different people at once. You are overwhelming yourself by posting hundreds of posts a day. Perhaps if you posted one well thought out post to answer multiple questions, came back a couple hours later and let the dust settle, and then post another well thought out post. While I was typing my posts 10 new ones already popped up in which I had to include some of your new questions, answer those thoroughly, only to see 3 or 4 more posts by the time I was finished typing answers. Your answers are not well thought out, because you contradict yourself many times, even in those past couple of posts, let alone the 600+ other ones you made in the past couple of weeks. You bring up questions asking how this will work, how will that work, it would be best to read those two chapters I gave you (even better to read the whole book), read some of the articles. Many of your questions will be answered through your own thought process. Jacob Bloom:I'm going to leave a few things out here and there, mainly because I've been asked to answer the same questions over and over again. Because you keep making the same mistakes over and over and over again. This is why I recommend slowing down your posts, going to read, and then you won't have as many repeat questions asked to you over and over and over again.
1. I believe my answers are very well thought out. I know what works and what doesn't. You think they're not well thought out because they're not consistent with ancap. I suggest you get outside of this one subject to look for answers this one particular school of thought really doesn't seem to have. The main thing that's missing is experimentation. Results. Suggestions. No one knows how to create this society, just that it "should" exist. No one knows how this society would work except that it "has to." That's not enough evidence for me. I need to see an anarchist society in action.
2. I think you're making the same mistakes over and over again by spouting the same untried ideas and asserting them as true because some book says they are. Try these ideas. Show me they work. Then you can come back and tell me I was wrong.
Anarchist Cain: Now someone would usually refer to the first several chapters of Rothbard's Ethics of Liberty to disprove that natural rights require a creator but frankly its just a waste of time with you.
How can rights exist without an enforcer? Don't tell me what Rothbard philosophized, tell me literally how you would have any rights at all if they weren't being protected for you right this instant?
Jacob Bloom:How can rights exist without an enforcer?
God is the only enforcer?
Anarchist Cain: Jacob Bloom:How can rights exist without an enforcer? God is the only enforcer?
Man is the only real enforcer.
Jacob Bloom:Man is the only real enforcer.
So natural rights can be enforced by man? Therefore they do not require a creator.
Jacob Bloom:What you're saying is only possible if some entity exists to enforce rights under any circumstance
Yes, slaves had rights. That the rights were being trampled on didn't mean they didn't exist.
Anarchist Cain: Jacob Bloom:Man is the only real enforcer. So natural rights can be enforced by man? Therefore they do not require a creator.
Well, rights can be enforced by man. But if they're not enforced, they disappear. But inalienable rights would require an ever present enforcer. The argument for "natural rights" in an inalienable sense is a religious idea after all.
Jacob Bloom: Daniel: Jacob Bloom: MatthewF: Assuming you aren't violent currently, what prevents you from being so? I'm very very afraid of prison. Would you be afraid of going to prison in a libertarian society? This is a weird question. Because the assumption is that I would ever go to prison. Or that anyone would ever go to prison in a libertarian society. But I don't think they would because they'd just keep going back and forth between private courts until they got the verdict they wanted.
So what if one of these courts was run by a PDA that was running rampant and throwing people in jail without appeal?
Are you going to force us to call you Jacob so that can actually be Jacob, or is your name Jacob regardless of what we call you?
Jacob Bloom:Well, rights can be enforced by man. But if they're not enforced, they disappear. But inalienable rights would require an ever present enforcer. The argument for "natural rights" in an inalienable sense is a religious idea after all.