if we want a stateless society, why dont a team of private investors and political refugees colonize Somalia
do we get free cheezeburger in socielism?
Stranger:But the point is that I love my country. Don't you?
I've traveled a wee bit. I like my country, but in many ways, it is inferior to others I have been to. I don't feel I particularly owe it anything in the way of allegiance or loyalty.
I could learn to love a free country, regardless of the climate or geography. Being free is more important to me than acknowledging my history and the history of my ancestors with a particular state.
@all, I second the Liberty Colony idea. It's possible that an exodus may at one point be the only option left to us. The world is certainly not getting less statist. Things are moving in the wrong direction, and while choosing to stand and fight might be honourable, it's wise to pick the battles you can win. If you can't beat the state, then change the game. Plus the entrepreneurial opportunities for a Liberty Colony could be tremendous.
Anonymous Coward: What everyone is leaving out is that there is already a quite extensive road network in existance. Just off the top of my head...how hard would it be to extend property lines to the center of the street instead of having them end at the edge of the road as it is today and nip the monopoly argument in the bud.
What everyone is leaving out is that there is already a quite extensive road network in existance.
Just off the top of my head...how hard would it be to extend property lines to the center of the street instead of having them end at the edge of the road as it is today and nip the monopoly argument in the bud.
That would, indeed, be a pretty good idea on how to make that transition.
There is already well established 'access rights doctrine' to property that would end the whole 'deny access to be an asshole argument'.
Assuming that every private security provider wrote that into the contracts, everyone agreed to such contracts, yeah. But that is an assumption that I'm not entirely comfortable with.
You end up with people who have the choice to either maintain their own section of the road (like their front yard), hire it out to a private company (like hiring a landscape company) or selling off that section of land to a private company (like a HOA).
Or, in glee, to spike the cannon of the evil internal combustion engine, refuse to maintain it at all - mayhaps even dig deep holes or erect barriers to impede traffic.
Bicyclists, given bicycle-only lanes and greenways in this city (Minneapolis), still go out of their way to impede vehicular traffic upon occasion. It's almost a religion to them, and some of them are, likely, landowners.
In an anarchy, who would have the right to force them to allow traffic on their property at all? It's either their property, or it's not. With new road construction, this isn't much of an issue. With existing urban roads, I can see this being something of a problem.
Now all you have to worry about is having the type of neighbors that keep ten cars on cinder blocks in their front yard no matter how much social pressure is put on them to clean it up. Which begs the question; is a nice front yard a 'public good' that needs to be maintained by a coercive monopoly?
Which begs the question; is a nice front yard a 'public good' that needs to be maintained by a coercive monopoly?
Actually, there is some validity to each side of that debate, too - though I know which side I prefer, I understand that not everyone's going to agree with me on that one, either. But let's keep this to roads for now, okay? I'm having a hard time keeping up as it is.
Danno, overworked and remarkably underpaid here.
The avatar graphic text:
"Are you coming to bed?"
"No, this is important"
"What?"
"Someone is wrong on the internet."
Danno: Would you be so kind as to point to or quote where I admitted to wanting a monopolistic provider of security?
I remain, as ever, convinced that an excess of government, like fire, is disastrous. I stll fear that a small, controlled amount is needful.
I'd thought we were discussing transportation.
That darn Real World keeps on getting in the way of those great theories. Drat!
Lord Kelvin: "I have not the smallest molecule of faith in aerial navigation other than ballooning or of the expectation of good results from any of the trials we hear of ... I would not care to be a member of the Aeronautical Society."
Danno:...in the vast majority of situations, private enterprise can easily outperform government. I just remain unconvinced that it's universally applicable, and roads is the most obvious 'must-have' commodity in which the argument is sketchy, particularly urban roads.
February 17 - 1600 - Giordano Bruno is burnt alive by the catholic church. Aquinas : "much more reason is there for heretics, as soon as they are convicted of heresy, to be not only excommunicated but even put to death."
Stranger: Danno: Would you be so kind as to point to or quote where I admitted to wanting a monopolistic provider of security? {...} Without the local government's security forces, how would you prevent your local community from transforming itself into a private enterprise?
Danno: Would you be so kind as to point to or quote where I admitted to wanting a monopolistic provider of security? {...}
Would you be so kind as to point to or quote where I admitted to wanting a monopolistic provider of security? {...}
The same way I'll prevent a large meteor from destroying my home. Frankly, the large meteor is considerably more likely - I live in liberal, statist turf - almost every campaign poster around here says 'Obama', and several say 'Franken'. It's almost bad enough to outweigh the benefits of living here - but only almost.
If my local community did transform itself into a private enterprise, I'd largely welcome the transition - but those roads would make me very nervous until I saw how they worked out.
Danno, just getting an idea for a lively topic of discussion....
Danno: If my local community did transform itself into a private enterprise, I'd largely welcome the transition - but those roads would make me very nervous until I saw how they worked out.
So what the hell are you arguing with us about? You'd welcome private roads, but you don't want them?
The fallacies of intellectual communism, a compilation - On the nature of power
GilesStratton: But you do prefer socialized roads..
But you do prefer socialized roads..
Not in the least. Nobody would be happier than I if I saw evidence that privately-owned roads would not become more of a problem in an urban setting than government "owned" roads are. If I see convincing evidence that a free market would outperform a government in that (and a few other) functions, I'll be glad to change my nametag from "minimal-government libertarian" to "anarchist".
I just haven't seen that evidence yet. Sorry if that annoys you.
Danno, who hasn't been this maligned or misrepresented since he argued with Liberal Democrats.
Danno: Not in the least. Nobody would be happier than I if I saw evidence that privately-owned roads would not become more of a problem in an urban setting than government "owned" roads are. If I see convincing evidence that a free market would outperform a government in that (and a few other) functions, I'll be glad to change my nametag from "minimal-government libertarian" to "anarchist". I just haven't seen that evidence yet. Sorry if that annoys you.
That evidence cannot exist before there is established a free market in roads, I hope you realize.
Stranger: Danno: Not in the least. Nobody would be happier than I if I saw evidence that privately-owned roads would not become more of a problem in an urban setting than government "owned" roads are. If I see convincing evidence that a free market would outperform a government in that (and a few other) functions, I'll be glad to change my nametag from "minimal-government libertarian" to "anarchist". I just haven't seen that evidence yet. Sorry if that annoys you. That evidence cannot exist before there is established a free market in roads, I hope you realize.
Indeed, what he's asking is equivelant to asking somebody to describe how the internet would work a hundred years ago.
"You don't need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows"
Bob Dylan
Danno:Not in the least.
It's simple, you either favour coercion as a means to provide roads or you don't. No matter what your reasons, you do and as a result you favour socialized roads.
Danno:Assuming that every private security provider wrote that into the contracts, everyone agreed to such contracts, yeah. But that is an assumption that I'm not entirely comfortable with.
I lost my post so instead of retyping it all I'll just answer this since I have things to do.
That's all part of well established common law doctrine. It goes into that in The Ethics of Liberty where legal arbitrators are the finders of existing law and not the makers of new law. The common customary policy (law) is that you can't deny someone previously established access to their property.
Anarchy isn't the absense of law as in commonly thought.
If you can somehow come up with a plan for a non-coercive coercively funded road monopoly then we can talk about specifics.
Juan: Danno: Would you be so kind as to point to or quote where I admitted to wanting a monopolistic provider of security? Well, you said I remain, as ever, convinced that an excess of government, like fire, is disastrous. I stll fear that a small, controlled amount is needful. Maybe I misunderstood but I took that as an endorsement of so called 'miniarchism'.
Maybe I misunderstood but I took that as an endorsement of so called 'miniarchism'.
Hmm - I never promised to live within any label. To be honest, I must admit that I'm only guessing at the actual definitions of those labels myself - I've never bothered to look 'em up. I only look stuff like that up if I think it's relevant to the discussion at hand, and self-labeling has never been all that much fun.
In local, personal security, I can't see why competition would not be a marked improvement over what we're force-fed now. Large-area, national security is another topic for another time - I haven't studied the topic well enough to be convinced in either direction.
If there's no monopoly in security there can be no monopoly in economic activities, as a general rule.
Alcoa ran one for a while, until the local security monopoly forced them to support their competitors. It can be done, by massively outperforming any competition - but it's not easy or common.
Last time I tried this quote it had no effect, but I think maybe you can appreciate it. Lord Kelvin: "I have not the smallest molecule of faith in aerial navigation other than ballooning or of the expectation of good results from any of the trials we hear of ... I would not care to be a member of the Aeronautical Society." So...the real world can change. To dismiss things as utopian is not a sound argument.
Point taken. I do like to think that I'm addressing an actual, practical difficulty rather than dismissing an idea out of hand because, without proof, I simply consider it utopian.
I suspect that a Piper Cub would have changed Lord Kelvin's mind fairly quickly. I'm entirely open to the idea that someone is going to float a plane past me here, and give me reason to change my mind. It is beginning to become discouraging, though.
Danno:...in the vast majority of situations, private enterprise can easily outperform government. I just remain unconvinced that it's universally applicable, and roads is the most obvious 'must-have' commodity in which the argument is sketchy, particularly urban roads. I admit that the urban roads problem is not that easy, but on the other hand I don't see how government can solve it either. Roads can be privately owned, but if that means that the road owner gets to decide who can move freely within a city then it's a solution I don't like.
I admit that the urban roads problem is not that easy, but on the other hand I don't see how government can solve it either. Roads can be privately owned, but if that means that the road owner gets to decide who can move freely within a city then it's a solution I don't like.
That is, in effect, what we have now - the road owner gets to decide, and those decisions are not always just (or even rational). In the state I live in, one can have one's driving "privileges" revoked for failing to pay one's court-ordered child support.
It is, however, not managed so poorly as to be unworkable - most people get around in a livably efficient, effective way. As I've said before, if I can be shown a means by which the free market would reliably improve upon that, I'll cheerfully become a proponent of that means.
Maybe urban roads need to be a common of sorts, but that doesn't mean that government is needed for road building or maintenance...or anything.
An organization that maintains and regulates such a commons, without competition, is different from a government? How?
Danno, ever hopeful
Stranger: Danno: If my local community did transform itself into a private enterprise, I'd largely welcome the transition - but those roads would make me very nervous until I saw how they worked out. So what the hell are you arguing with us about? You'd welcome private roads, but you don't want them?
I'd certainly welcome them, if I could be assured that they'd not be a worse situation than the governement roads we have now. I'm apparently being argued with because not taking "All Government, in all cases, is worse than the Free Market" as an article of faith seems to infuriate some.
Danno, who hardly ever toes anyone's party line.
Stranger: Danno: I just haven't seen that evidence yet. Sorry if that annoys you. That evidence cannot exist before there is established a free market in roads, I hope you realize.
Danno: I just haven't seen that evidence yet. Sorry if that annoys you.
I'm sorry - I used that word poorly. I don't demand actual proof - I'd be happy with a realistic "this is how it would work" that answers objections convincingly - as is easily available in the case of free market security services versus state-run police forces, for example.
I've followed pointers, read papers, essays, and previous conversations. Mostly, they're unsatisfying - vague "we'll figure that out when we get there", or "you only disbelieve because of your preconceptions, which are false" arguments. I'd hoped for a convincing scenario. It's apparently unavailable, and nobody is less happy about that than I am.
Danno, apologizing for any confusion my poor choice of words may have caused.
GilesStratton: It's simple, you either favour coercion as a means to provide roads or you don't. No matter what your reasons, you do and as a result you favour socialized roads.
You're right, it's simple - I don't. I'm a strong proponent of roads being funded by user fees, not general taxes. I'm actually okay with each property owner in urban environments being required to provide right of way (sidewalks) for general use, and I'm not oft okay with anyone being required to provide anything to anybody - but personal and commercial transportation is an essential, and I would not be okay with access to that being put into the hands of someone against whom there is no effective recourse.
Is that a bit clearer, or are you going to read that as something I have clearly not said again?
Danno, striving for clarity, but apparently failing.
Danno: GilesStratton: It's simple, you either favour coercion as a means to provide roads or you don't. No matter what your reasons, you do and as a result you favour socialized roads. You're right, it's simple - I don't. I'm a strong proponent of roads being funded by user fees, not general taxes. I'm actually okay with each property owner in urban environments being required to provide right of way (sidewalks) for general use, and I'm not oft okay with anyone being required to provide anything to anybody - but personal and commercial transportation is an essential, and I would not be okay with access to that being put into the hands of someone against whom there is no effective recourse. Is that a bit clearer, or are you going to read that as something I have clearly not said again? Danno, striving for clarity, but apparently failing.
Either you favour violence or you don't. You quite clearly do, you said people should be required to provide "right of way"? How exactly would that be enforced? Violence.
You either believe in a government monopoly funded by taxes with other providers excluded through violence or you don't, and you quite simply do.
Danno:Hmm - I never promised to live within any label. To be honest, I must admit that I'm only guessing at the actual definitions of those labels myself - I've never bothered to look 'em up.
In the state I live in, one can have one's driving "privileges" revoked for failing to pay one's court-ordered child support.
As I've said before, if I can be shown a means by which the free market would reliably improve upon that, I'll cheerfully become a proponent of that means.