Sam Armstrong:So If we do have anarchism, would the security/justice companies not decide what is coercion and what is not?
Well, they would, based upon the expectations and demands of their clients.
Sam Armstrong:Or rather, would in not be the consumers of security/justice companies voting with their dollars deciding what is coercion?
What is coercion is not the question. What is acceptable is the question.
Sam Armstrong:Is that not the same as Mob Rule?
No. Mob rule is rule by majority. Anarchy is rule by consent.
Nitroadict:From now on, I will refer to all forum members here as demagogues, because after all, we are all out to get one another in an effort to get the most Mises Points.
You get +10 points for discovering that there is such a game and such a point system.
So far the tally is:
Nitroadict: 10
The world: 0
'Men do not change, they unmask themselves' - Germaine de Stael
Well if someone who's not paying the security company does something that someone who is paying the security company thinks is coercion, and the security company reprimands them, are they not being ruled without consent regardless of whether or not they actually coerced? Doesn't that security company have a monopoly of force against that person?
Who is going to pay for positive law enforcement? Nearly every libertarian would argue against nation building by the state, why would we assume they would pay for the same sort of intervention in domestic society?
Laughing Man: So far the tally is: Nitroadict: 0 The world: 10
Nitroadict: 0
The world: 10
But then again I'm just a "moral nihilist" when it comes to points & demagoguery.
"Look at me, I'm quoting another user to show how wrong I think they are, out of arrogance of my own position. Wait, this is my own quote, oh shi-" ~ Nitroadict
So are we fine with saying that it's a problem with no solution because the only solution creates the problem itself?
Sam Armstrong: So are we fine with saying that it's a problem with no solution because the only solution creates the problem itself?
What is 'it' ?
What is the problem?
"The solution creates the problem itself." That would be a contradiction.
liberty student: I personally believe I must be as radical as I can be, for if I won't, who else will?
I personally believe I must be as radical as I can be, for if I won't, who else will?
Beautiful... I thought this same thought only a few nights ago when someone asked me: "Why don't you soften your message up a little to make it more acceptable in polite company?". Keep up the struggle.
"I cannot prove, but am prepared to affirm, that if you take care of clarity in reasoning, most good causes will take care of themselves, while some bad ones are taken care of as a matter of course." -Anthony de Jasay
Sam Armstrong:So are we fine with saying that it's a problem with no solution
But there is a solution. Competition.
Give this a read
http://www.lewrockwell.com/long/long11.html
Specifically 4, 5, 7 and 10
No, it would be market rule. Just like the market provides for different grocery stores to shop at, the market would provide different agencies to resolve disputes. Disputes would be resolved on an individual basis. The mob would have nothing to do with a particular dispute. Do you think mob rule is what dictates the outcomes of international disputes between companies?
At most, I think only 5% of the adult population would need to stop cooperating to have real change.
Thanks, that article cleared up any reservations I had.
Nitroadict:But then again I'm just a "moral nihilist" when it comes to points & demagoguery.
I think you jest. I have heard whispers of your proposes concerning the point system of value. PoV! Bah such absurdity!