Clayton
Beautiful writing.
Of course we're at opposite ends... you're a statist, I'm anti-statist.
Actually, I'm not technically a statist. But that wasn't the context of my observation anyway. We're different because you seem to care not a whit for the planet itself--other than perhaps where it might be further exploited by the all-moral, all-wise free market and its benevolent, voluntary "forces." I think that for the time being, human nature being what it is, the evolution toward a stable stateless society ought to first turn toward a much greater appreciation for personal accountability and social/environmental courtesy--under the protective wing of a fully-fledged military defense and law enforcement apparatus. But I'm not opposed to the dismantling of my own proposed system, in favor of a stateless society. Our main difference is that I'm not content to practice prudent, radical secessionism. I felt morally obliged to do more. That you make my good effort the enemy of your perfectly-docile radicalism suggests that you're more interested in pure martyrdom than practical movement.
it is not their commands but our obedience which makes them powerful
I suspect that most people have no desire to allow others access to the sweat of their brows: They too "seceded"--upon a look at their first paychecks. And they've uttered their own strongly-worded protestations, though few as eloquent as yours.
That is what LvMI and Ron Paul are all about.
How is it that I am called a statist for proposing a system that is a vehicle for dismantling the current one; and Ron Paul is a hero for defending the original intent of the current Constitution?
Only self-promoting ideologies need to evangelize. Only people with something to sell need to advertise. We're not selling anything. We don't directly benefit from people changing their minds and realizing the truth about the conditions in which they live.
Of course you directly benefit if people change their minds: that's the only way anything changes for you. And not evangelizing or advertising is a default description of one person grandstanding among his peers, preaching to his own choir.
The truth will win out in the end
I'd say it's a coin toss, at this point.
Because RP is constrained by popular idiocy. You, on the other hand, are on a forum chockfull of "radicals" and you are still defending some state fantasy (if I may).
DarylLloydDavis:Besides shifting the costs of government services directly upon those whose activities necessitate them, thereby disincentivizing the use of government itself, making reliance upon it personally costly and potentially risky (as in court and police costs for frivolous suits and false arrests), my system also leaves open the door for local voting precincts, or any small political unit, to reserve the right to determine many of their own laws and ordinances by their own direct voting. In other words, if enough precincts refuse to participate in a national initiative on an issue like the legalization of abortion, then any precinct may, upon ratification, decide any new issue for itself. Furthermore, upon ratification, any precinct may elect to begin to dismantle the old, existing laws, as they apply to that precinct; so long as this would not violate the new Constitution. This is a system designed to dismantled the old one, the current one--when the people learn to appreciate the freedom of self-determination--of designing each and every community the way it wishes. It isn't ancap; because votes still decide issues; but it has a lot of potential to teach the People why freedom is always preferable to government control. [Emphasis added.]
Like I said, a direct democracy still involves majority rule and a one-size-fits-all approach to decision-making. Of course, such decision-making only applies to the voting area. You yourself admit this in the above quote.
Under your hypothetical constitution, is any individual or group allowed to secede?
DarylLloydDavis:And then what? That would leave wide open the distinct probability that force would decide all issues--primarily force of numbers, or force of might. That might not violate the letter of the NAP; but it seems to violate the spirit of it.
How would it? Explain yourself.
DarylLloydDavis:I'm free to criticize all of you for not offering an alternative--and yet I am offering one of my own. I'm also gathering in your challenges, taking them seriously, and refuting them when I can. It would be nice if this exchange were always mutual.
Please show me where you've refuted a single counter-argument of mine so far.
With that said, expressing your disappointment with us for not offering alternatives in no way constitutes a valid logical criticism. Logic is my standard for argumentation, not emotion.
DarylLloydDavis:I was suggesting that the capacity to commit aggression would be far greater, and far more prevalent, and far less controllable, were private individuals, with all of their random poor decisions, in possession of the weaponry upon which the government currently enjoys a monopoly. In effect, you would quite possibly add to the general level, or the numerical odds, of aggression by privatizing all weaponry, if for no other reason than as a natural result of accident/stupidity, followed by retaliation, ad infinitum. In such a case you would see less freedom than you currently enjoy--or freedom in name only.
You weren't suggesting that initially, in your reply to Clayton. You were clearly talking about the capacity to make "wasteful" and/or "inefficient" decisions not being limited to people who work in the government. If you're making a separate argument here, please be explicit about it - otherwise, I'll consider you to be acting in an intellectually dishonest manner. (Whether you care about that is, of course, entirely up to you.)
DarylLloydDavis:They might make and repair the roads more efficiently; but I don't see any orderly, unwasteful way that travel and trade could in any way be guaranteed--or even maintained--without a governing authority. By the way, would all existing roads be sold off; such that the next day, someone else owned the road outside your house--and someone else the road linked to it--ad infinitum again. It's absurd to anyone not hell-bent on defending pure private markets.
There's no way to guarantee (as in make certain for the future) travel and trade, period. The future is always uncertain.
But regarding governing authority, wouldn't private property be such itself? You don't think people would or even could offer themselves for hire to adjudicate disputes?
What exactly makes it "absurd" for all perceptually distinct roads to be owned by separate individuals or groups? I'd like you to make your thought processes explicit here.
DarylLloydDavis:Pure capitalism theoretically ensures the most efficient, productive distribution and use of natural resources. And if that is the only moral value, and it is unleashed worldwide, it will most efficiently use up all of the world's resources. Add to that formula the complete privatization of all the Earth's land, as all of you seem to support, and every bit of it will be economically exploited, none left undeveloped, except the private property of those still holding out--an ever-shrinking few. I like that states stalemate one another's development and exploitation of the world's resources; and I like that America protects some of its best natural lands, e.g. Yellowstone and the national forests. I don't wish to turn the globe into the DeathStar (from Star Wars.)
Explain how capitalism must lead to Earth turning into a Death Star. I see no way in which that necessarily follows from the premises.
As far as you not wanting to turn Earth into a Death Star - well, you don't own the entire Earth, now do you? So I wouldn't say it's up to you (fortunately).
DarylLloydDavis:Never owned a pet, Autolykos? No need for an ecosystem, or a food chain?
I don't value ecosystems or food chains for their own sake. By "human world", I didn't mean the same thing as the human species - I meant the "human ecosystem" - the organisms that mankind uses to sustain and enrich itself. That in no way entails every single other species on Earth.
DarylLloydDavis:Please respond to the many already listed, or I might conclude that you are unable to do so. My investment in an exhaustive list is in direct proportion to my expectation of your investment in directly addressing it.
I hereby categorically refuse to respond to what you've listed until you provide an exhaustive list, as implied by your use of the word "enumeration". I will not back down from this whatsoever. Conclude whatever you want - I don't care and I won't budge.
DarylLloydDavis:I understand that there is plenty of abuse in a government system. (I got a $154 ticket the other day from a cop who told me that I should have lied to him about wearing my seatbelt, so that he could write me a point-free ticket for that, instead of one for running a stop sign.) But at least that cop has a superior officer, and the department has internal affairs, and then there's the FBI--a system of checks and balances and a set of written, impartial laws that serve to ensure stability and accountability. If I have a blindspot, it is that I can't see where a purely private society would establish a stable system of justice, and with it, a functional, authoritative check on the excesses of private individuals.
How does a monopoly over legitimate use of coercion (i.e. a government) check itself? This is a very simple question. The cops, the FBI, all of your alleged "checks and balances" are hardly independent from one another, because they're part of the same overall organization. This organization enjoys an imputed monopoly over legitimate use of coercion. Such an imputed monopoly means that it's also allowed to decide cases where its own members are involved. What incentive does it have to rule against its own members - aside from whatever meager threat there might be of public outcry, and that only if the public is fully aware of all the facts (i.e. none have been hidden from it)?
A monopoly over legitimate use of coercion is allowed to define what "legitimate use of coercion" itself is, and no one's allowed to challenge it on its own definition thereof.
DarylLloydDavis:When China drives steel manufacturers out of business here, by selling their steel for less than its worth--just to eliminate their competition--it makes no difference to them if one firm doesn't buy their steel. But if the government slaps a tariff on their steel, that makes a huge difference to them: if forces them to be just. Unless the whole world goes ancap all at once, there will all sorts of vulnerabilities for the one that does go ancap, economic, military, and otherwise. That's why a transitional plan is so crucial--and the lack of one, so disappointing.
Dude, come on. What's this "when" crap? You keep making these asinine assumptions with no logical or even empirical basis behind them. It's just one bare assertion after another. Guess what? A bare assertion is a logical fallacy. Keep it up, you have a great track record there.
Furthermore, what's this about "eliminate their competition"? How exactly does a private business eliminate its competitors? It doesn't. Competitors go out of business when consumers choose to buy elsewhere or not at all. For someone who claims to know a lot about capitalism, I'm surprised that you don't seem to understand this.
Be disappointed with my or anyone else's lack of a transitional plan all you want. I'm not here for that. I'm here to analyze arguments as logically as I can. If you don't like that, well that's your problem - I don't care how bad of a hissy fit you throw over it. It makes no difference to me, and I will continue to point out logical flaws in your and others' arguments as time and motivation allow.
DarylLloydDavis:Under my system those who force issues before a court pay directly for that service, just as though the court were a private enterprise--only the judges are paid from a public pool of revenue, not from private litigants. No more general taxation, only pay-per-use/serve.
"No more general taxation", you say, but you also say that "judges are paid from a public pool of revenue". Where exactly does this public pool of revenue come from? It sounds to me like it must come from taxes, if people aren't paying directly for the judges' services. So why contradict yourself like this? Is it deliberate? Do you think none of us will notice?
DarylLloydDavis:Experience has born out the relative trustworthiness of liberal democracies in refraining from a use of destructive force against their own populations. Rare exceptions like Waco only prove the rule. Governments have a vested interest in preserving the lives and the earning power of the People. Businesses are focused upon eliminating the competition: those who are not their customers are not their concern. With respect to weaponry and justice, this concerns me.
What "experience" are you talking about? Once again, do you really expect any of the rest of us to just roll over when you pull words out of your ass like that? I'm sorry but we have a higher standard of argumentation around here. You keep on just making these claims - bare assertions, once again - without any sort of backing to them. What makes governments always and necessarily have a vested interest in preserving the lives and the earning power of "the people"? (And why do you capitalize the word "people" like that? Is it something "sacred" to you?) You provide no explanation for this - along with many other bare assertions - whatsoever. Is this really how you think about things on your own?
DarylLloydDavis:It becomes your problem too, when you can't buy anything anymore. Vegetable garden anyone? Barter economy? Gold coins again?
Here we go again. Another bare assertion, and this time it's implicit (namely, that if one or more people are willing to take fiat money in exchange for fancy cars and mansions, there will necessarily arrive some point in the future at which no one will be able to buy anything anymore).
In my honest opinion, you're a perfect example of what Clayton refers to as "the moral double standard". This double standard blinds you to so much.
The keyboard is mightier than the gun.
Non parit potestas ipsius auctoritatem.
Voluntaryism Forum
that's the only way anything changes for you.
Nonsense, things are already changing for me. I'm not waiting around for everybody to wake up. With a little non-linear thinking, you will see how you or anyone else who simply wants to stop being exploited can escape. Public-choice theory is a two-edged sword... not only does government not care about helping me, it really doesn't care enough to destroy me (personally), either.
It's like Bruce Lee taught... you have to be water. Water is both soft and hard and you must know how to switch back and forth as circumstance requires. Non-linear action is the key to working around the tyrannical system.
Clayton -
DarylLloydDavis: Besides shifting the costs of government services directly upon those whose activities necessitate them, thereby disincentivizing the use of government itself, making reliance upon it personally costly and potentially risky (as in court and police costs for frivolous suits and false arrests), my system also leaves open the door for local voting precincts, or any small political unit, to reserve the right to determine many of their own laws and ordinances by their own direct voting. In other words, if enough precincts refuse to participate in a national initiative on an issue like the legalization of abortion, then any precinct may, upon ratification, decide any new issue for itself. Furthermore, upon ratification, any precinct may elect to begin to dismantle the old, existing laws, as they apply to that precinct; so long as this would not violate the new Constitution. This is a system designed to dismantled the old one, the current one--when the people learn to appreciate the freedom of self-determination--of designing each and every community the way it wishes. It isn't ancap; because votes still decide issues; but it has a lot of potential to teach the People why freedom is always preferable to government control. May any precinct secede? And then what? That would leave wide open the distinct probability that force would decide all issues--primarily force of numbers, or force of might. That might not violate the letter of the NAP; but it seems to violate the spirit of it. So we need to institutionalize violence to protect the 'the people' from violence? Gotcha. I'm free to criticize all of you for not offering an alternative--and yet I am offering one of my own. I'm also gathering in your challenges, taking them seriously, and refuting them when I can. It would be nice if this exchange were always mutual. Here's a few: teaching people ethics, history, and economics and getting them to vote down to minarchy and then disband from government altogether. Or secede into territories like in NH. Or spread agorism so that the state shrivels from lack of taxation. None of these assumes that a specially designed state is preferable to a free and peaceful society. I was suggesting that the capacity to commit aggression would be far greater, and far more prevalent, and far less controllable, were private individuals, with all of their random poor decisions, in possession of the weaponry upon which the government currently enjoys a monopoly. In effect, you would quite possibly add to the general level, or the numerical odds, of aggression by privatizing all weaponry, if for no other reason than as a natural result of accident/stupidity, followed by retaliation, ad infinitum. In such a case you would see less freedom than you currently enjoy--or freedom in name only. Suggest all you want, but that is a bare assertion and it holds no reason to my mind. Humans are humans. As if once you take off the 'public' sticker and slap on the 'private' one, they're much more greedy and foolish. You don't understand, despite numerous explanations, that sustained aggression is possible only by involuntary funding. The costs of aggression are heavy and reveal the folly of the aggression itself, thus without taxation, aggressive institutions are short lived from a lack of funding. How exactly does privatization increase the odds of aggression? They might make and repair the roads more efficiently; but I don't see any orderly, unwasteful way that travel and trade could in any way be guaranteed--or even maintained--without a governing authority. By the way, would all existing roads be sold off; such that the next day, someone else owned the road outside your house--and someone else the road linked to it--ad infinitum again. It's absurd to anyone not hell-bent on defending pure private markets. I do. Would you explain your doubts? Specifically, why central authority is necessary to travel? Methinks you're being willfully unimaginative of the possibilities of privatized travel. As if every 20 ft section of road in front of people's lawns in the suburbs would have a toll booth and gun turret attached. Pure capitalism theoretically ensures the most efficient, productive distribution and use of natural resources. And if that is the only moral value, and it is unleashed worldwide, it will most efficiently use up all of the world's resources. Add to that formula the complete privatization of all the Earth's land, as all of you seem to support, and every bit of it will be economically exploited, none left undeveloped, except the private property of those still holding out--an ever-shrinking few. I like that states stalemate one another's development and exploitation of the world's resources; and I like that America protects some of its best natural lands, e.g. Yellowstone and the national forests. I don't wish to turn the globe into the DeathStar (from Star Wars.) Total nonsense. Do people like wildlands, forests, and mountains? Yes. Hunters, hikers, thrillseekers, whatever. Is it so impossible to your mind that people would concentrate funds to protect wildlands? That's what the state did, why can't the people? Have you ever considered that the tarmac sprawl, strip mall, concrete desert format of America is due to the massive highway project pursued in the fifties which incentivized the automobile culture, and all of its corporate misfortunes, and disincentivized alternative forms of travel? Please respond to the many already listed, or I might conclude that you are unable to do so. My investment in an exhaustive list is in direct proportion to my expectation of your investment in directly addressing it. They've been explained before, specifically in my thread with you, but you ignore them or could not provide a satisfactory refutation, to my mind. It seems like you think that economics is a religion more than a science. With all your 'free market is god' talk. It isn't. It isn't perfect, but it works the best. Since coming to these boards I have not seen one satisfactory refutation of the ability of the market to avoid monopoly, depression, 'wage slavery', etc. If you must convince yourself so (that economics is religion), then please do not set about to plan society, as so many before you have done. I understand that there is plenty of abuse in a government system. (I got a $154 ticket the other day from a cop who told me that I should have lied to him about wearing my seatbelt, so that he could write me a point-free ticket for that, instead of one for running a stop sign.) But at least that cop has a superior officer, and the department has internal affairs, and then there's the FBI--a system of checks and balances and a set of written, impartial laws that serve to ensure stability and accountability. If I have a blindspot, it is that I can't see where a purely private society would establish a stable system of justice, and with it, a functional, authoritative check on the excesses of private individuals. Wait so the private cop doesn't have a boss? And that boss doesn't have a boss? Strange business model... Here's some basic info about the functions of a market free from central authority: consumers seek service, A provides good service, B provides bad service, consumer pays A. If you don't understand, please go back to our thread and re-read. When China drives steel manufacturers out of business here, by selling their steel for less than its worth--just to eliminate their competition--it makes no difference to them if one firm doesn't buy their steel. But if the government slaps a tariff on their steel, that makes a huge difference to them: if forces them to be just. Unless the whole world goes ancap all at once, there will all sorts of vulnerabilities for the one that does go ancap, economic, military, and otherwise. That's why a transitional plan is so crucial--and the lack of one, so disappointing. It seems that you're engaging in the 'predatory pricing' myth. It doesn't happen and it's not in the interests of a business to make it happen. It is in the interests of a business, however, to steadily lower prices. You also seem to be referring to tariffs in the positive, please read Henry Hazlitt's Economics in One Lesson. Ok so you're saying that the regulated taxed slave labor chinese steel industry would crush a steel industry with no taxes or regulations? Perhaps it would outsell them, but I find it hard to believe that any decent business operating under such conditions would be destroyed against the bloated state-pumped monstrosities. Under my system those who force issues before a court pay directly for that service, just as though the court were a private enterprise--only the judges are paid from a public pool of revenue, not from private litigants. No more general taxation, only pay-per-use/serve. From a public pool of revenue? Hm where does that come from? Secondly, remember the rule above: consumers seek service, A provides good service, B provides bad service, consumer pays A. Consumers in the Law market do not wish to employ a court that is clearly pro-corporate. Once a company buys a court, it will have effectively wasted its money, because that court is still subject to market competition, and no one buys law service from a crook. That would be like buying oregano from a drug dealer, telling your friend about it, and then him buying oregano from said drug dealer. It doesn't happen. Experience has born out the relative trustworthiness of liberal democracies in refraining from a use of destructive force against their own populations. Rare exceptions like Waco only prove the rule. Governments have a vested interest in preserving the lives and the earning power of the People. Businesses are focused upon eliminating the competition: those who are not their customers are not their concern. With respect to weaponry and justice, this concerns me. What experience? Our liberal democracy just passed an indefinite detention bill. The earning power of the people is of little consequence since they can print and borrow at will. You're assuming that the leaders of the state are its keepers, when in reality they are greedy men looking to ride a wave of cash for as long as it keeps producing. And crashes can also be prfitable. Tell me, how does one eliminate competition other than by pleasing the customer better than your foe or buying regulations? It's disturbing to me to read this thread where you toss around all of the old fallacies you tossed around with me in our previous discussion. It seems that everything I said was of no consequence as you continue to ignore that which provides too great an inconvenience to your vision. I didn't even want to write all of this out, but I cannot permit the record to show that your statements are honest mistakes. If you could refute me, would you not have done so in the previous thread(s)? Here they are (we started in the first one and for some reason switched over to the second one midway): http://mises.org/Community/forums/t/27518.aspx?PageIndex=1 http://mises.org/Community/forums/t/27456.aspx?PageIndex=1 I realize this sounds haughty and I will take full responsibility for that charge of being a pompous douche, if you can go back and show me the holes in my arguments. But I can't permit you to ignore our previous discussion by continuing this nonsense. Also, you never satisfactorily expounded on 'human nature' and its relevance to corrupting a free market economy, something which you continually employ in arguments. Land & Liberty The Anarch is to the Anarchist what the Monarch is to the Monarchist. -Ernst Jünger | Post Points: 20
Besides shifting the costs of government services directly upon those whose activities necessitate them, thereby disincentivizing the use of government itself, making reliance upon it personally costly and potentially risky (as in court and police costs for frivolous suits and false arrests), my system also leaves open the door for local voting precincts, or any small political unit, to reserve the right to determine many of their own laws and ordinances by their own direct voting. In other words, if enough precincts refuse to participate in a national initiative on an issue like the legalization of abortion, then any precinct may, upon ratification, decide any new issue for itself. Furthermore, upon ratification, any precinct may elect to begin to dismantle the old, existing laws, as they apply to that precinct; so long as this would not violate the new Constitution. This is a system designed to dismantled the old one, the current one--when the people learn to appreciate the freedom of self-determination--of designing each and every community the way it wishes. It isn't ancap; because votes still decide issues; but it has a lot of potential to teach the People why freedom is always preferable to government control.
May any precinct secede?
And then what? That would leave wide open the distinct probability that force would decide all issues--primarily force of numbers, or force of might. That might not violate the letter of the NAP; but it seems to violate the spirit of it.
So we need to institutionalize violence to protect the 'the people' from violence? Gotcha.
I'm free to criticize all of you for not offering an alternative--and yet I am offering one of my own. I'm also gathering in your challenges, taking them seriously, and refuting them when I can. It would be nice if this exchange were always mutual.
Here's a few: teaching people ethics, history, and economics and getting them to vote down to minarchy and then disband from government altogether. Or secede into territories like in NH. Or spread agorism so that the state shrivels from lack of taxation. None of these assumes that a specially designed state is preferable to a free and peaceful society.
I was suggesting that the capacity to commit aggression would be far greater, and far more prevalent, and far less controllable, were private individuals, with all of their random poor decisions, in possession of the weaponry upon which the government currently enjoys a monopoly. In effect, you would quite possibly add to the general level, or the numerical odds, of aggression by privatizing all weaponry, if for no other reason than as a natural result of accident/stupidity, followed by retaliation, ad infinitum. In such a case you would see less freedom than you currently enjoy--or freedom in name only.
Suggest all you want, but that is a bare assertion and it holds no reason to my mind. Humans are humans. As if once you take off the 'public' sticker and slap on the 'private' one, they're much more greedy and foolish. You don't understand, despite numerous explanations, that sustained aggression is possible only by involuntary funding. The costs of aggression are heavy and reveal the folly of the aggression itself, thus without taxation, aggressive institutions are short lived from a lack of funding. How exactly does privatization increase the odds of aggression?
They might make and repair the roads more efficiently; but I don't see any orderly, unwasteful way that travel and trade could in any way be guaranteed--or even maintained--without a governing authority. By the way, would all existing roads be sold off; such that the next day, someone else owned the road outside your house--and someone else the road linked to it--ad infinitum again. It's absurd to anyone not hell-bent on defending pure private markets.
I do. Would you explain your doubts? Specifically, why central authority is necessary to travel? Methinks you're being willfully unimaginative of the possibilities of privatized travel. As if every 20 ft section of road in front of people's lawns in the suburbs would have a toll booth and gun turret attached.
Pure capitalism theoretically ensures the most efficient, productive distribution and use of natural resources. And if that is the only moral value, and it is unleashed worldwide, it will most efficiently use up all of the world's resources. Add to that formula the complete privatization of all the Earth's land, as all of you seem to support, and every bit of it will be economically exploited, none left undeveloped, except the private property of those still holding out--an ever-shrinking few. I like that states stalemate one another's development and exploitation of the world's resources; and I like that America protects some of its best natural lands, e.g. Yellowstone and the national forests. I don't wish to turn the globe into the DeathStar (from Star Wars.)
Total nonsense. Do people like wildlands, forests, and mountains? Yes. Hunters, hikers, thrillseekers, whatever. Is it so impossible to your mind that people would concentrate funds to protect wildlands? That's what the state did, why can't the people? Have you ever considered that the tarmac sprawl, strip mall, concrete desert format of America is due to the massive highway project pursued in the fifties which incentivized the automobile culture, and all of its corporate misfortunes, and disincentivized alternative forms of travel?
Please respond to the many already listed, or I might conclude that you are unable to do so. My investment in an exhaustive list is in direct proportion to my expectation of your investment in directly addressing it.
They've been explained before, specifically in my thread with you, but you ignore them or could not provide a satisfactory refutation, to my mind. It seems like you think that economics is a religion more than a science. With all your 'free market is god' talk. It isn't. It isn't perfect, but it works the best. Since coming to these boards I have not seen one satisfactory refutation of the ability of the market to avoid monopoly, depression, 'wage slavery', etc. If you must convince yourself so (that economics is religion), then please do not set about to plan society, as so many before you have done.
I understand that there is plenty of abuse in a government system. (I got a $154 ticket the other day from a cop who told me that I should have lied to him about wearing my seatbelt, so that he could write me a point-free ticket for that, instead of one for running a stop sign.) But at least that cop has a superior officer, and the department has internal affairs, and then there's the FBI--a system of checks and balances and a set of written, impartial laws that serve to ensure stability and accountability. If I have a blindspot, it is that I can't see where a purely private society would establish a stable system of justice, and with it, a functional, authoritative check on the excesses of private individuals.
Wait so the private cop doesn't have a boss? And that boss doesn't have a boss? Strange business model... Here's some basic info about the functions of a market free from central authority: consumers seek service, A provides good service, B provides bad service, consumer pays A. If you don't understand, please go back to our thread and re-read.
When China drives steel manufacturers out of business here, by selling their steel for less than its worth--just to eliminate their competition--it makes no difference to them if one firm doesn't buy their steel. But if the government slaps a tariff on their steel, that makes a huge difference to them: if forces them to be just. Unless the whole world goes ancap all at once, there will all sorts of vulnerabilities for the one that does go ancap, economic, military, and otherwise. That's why a transitional plan is so crucial--and the lack of one, so disappointing.
It seems that you're engaging in the 'predatory pricing' myth. It doesn't happen and it's not in the interests of a business to make it happen. It is in the interests of a business, however, to steadily lower prices. You also seem to be referring to tariffs in the positive, please read Henry Hazlitt's Economics in One Lesson. Ok so you're saying that the regulated taxed slave labor chinese steel industry would crush a steel industry with no taxes or regulations? Perhaps it would outsell them, but I find it hard to believe that any decent business operating under such conditions would be destroyed against the bloated state-pumped monstrosities.
Under my system those who force issues before a court pay directly for that service, just as though the court were a private enterprise--only the judges are paid from a public pool of revenue, not from private litigants. No more general taxation, only pay-per-use/serve.
From a public pool of revenue? Hm where does that come from? Secondly, remember the rule above: consumers seek service, A provides good service, B provides bad service, consumer pays A. Consumers in the Law market do not wish to employ a court that is clearly pro-corporate. Once a company buys a court, it will have effectively wasted its money, because that court is still subject to market competition, and no one buys law service from a crook. That would be like buying oregano from a drug dealer, telling your friend about it, and then him buying oregano from said drug dealer. It doesn't happen.
Experience has born out the relative trustworthiness of liberal democracies in refraining from a use of destructive force against their own populations. Rare exceptions like Waco only prove the rule. Governments have a vested interest in preserving the lives and the earning power of the People. Businesses are focused upon eliminating the competition: those who are not their customers are not their concern. With respect to weaponry and justice, this concerns me.
What experience? Our liberal democracy just passed an indefinite detention bill. The earning power of the people is of little consequence since they can print and borrow at will. You're assuming that the leaders of the state are its keepers, when in reality they are greedy men looking to ride a wave of cash for as long as it keeps producing. And crashes can also be prfitable.
Tell me, how does one eliminate competition other than by pleasing the customer better than your foe or buying regulations?
It's disturbing to me to read this thread where you toss around all of the old fallacies you tossed around with me in our previous discussion. It seems that everything I said was of no consequence as you continue to ignore that which provides too great an inconvenience to your vision. I didn't even want to write all of this out, but I cannot permit the record to show that your statements are honest mistakes. If you could refute me, would you not have done so in the previous thread(s)?
Here they are (we started in the first one and for some reason switched over to the second one midway):
http://mises.org/Community/forums/t/27518.aspx?PageIndex=1
http://mises.org/Community/forums/t/27456.aspx?PageIndex=1
I realize this sounds haughty and I will take full responsibility for that charge of being a pompous douche, if you can go back and show me the holes in my arguments. But I can't permit you to ignore our previous discussion by continuing this nonsense. Also, you never satisfactorily expounded on 'human nature' and its relevance to corrupting a free market economy, something which you continually employ in arguments.
The Anarch is to the Anarchist what the Monarch is to the Monarchist. -Ernst Jünger
Autolykos
I thought about that, and decided that a secession provision would only de-legitimize the document for a majority of those to whom I wished to appeal--not ancappers, but average Americans, who still want the reassurances of a stable state. But it also occured to me that no such provision is necessary anyway: If Texas decided to secede today, what difference would it really make whether the Constitution made provision for it?
I don't see how "seceding individuals" could be meaningful within any public system, since they would still be using public roads, still be subject to criminal and civil law enforcement, still feed parking meters, etc. I guess they could have the equivalent of diplomatic immunity; but that doesn't even work well now.
You proposed ending all legislation; and I asserted that without law, force would be more likely to settle all disputes instead. For if it isn't illegal to kill, rob, or to retaliate, and criminals still exist, then there would be no role for even private law enforcement: people would be left to arm themselves to provide for their own protection, banding together, presumably, to better ensure it--or else be individually subject to all those who don't respect the NAP. For those who don't want to join a collective, defensive group this would be one step toward NAP, and two steps back--and a real loss of freedom they enoy now. Further, I say that the government commits less real, violent aggression against its own innocent people--violates the NAP less egregiously--than real criminals would, absent government. Can I prove this? No. But I haven't heard a convincing argument otherwise.
One of the main reasons I don't often reply to your posts is that, in addition to being so snarky at times that I would be embarassed to take some of them seriously, I also get virtually no counter-argumentation from you: Accusations of logical fallacies don't represent an opposing point of view. Often you also seem either to be feigning an utter lack of understanding of basic issues, or simply to be intellectually-lazy, or completely hypocritical. Here's a quick list.
1) How exactly do "we"/"society" place a value on something? (Is there not already a minimum wage, Autolykos?)
2) I find this to be highly immoral. Can you prove me wrong? (Note that this will require proving that objective morality must exist.) (Would you say that the NAP is a moral system, objectively, Autolykos?)
You weren't suggesting that initially, in your reply to Clayton. You were clearly talking about the capacity to make "wasteful" and/or "inefficient" decisions not being limited to people who work in the government. If you're making a separate argument here, please be explicit about it
My very next sentence was: "Mail delivery is a relatively-simple, harmless enterprise. Law enforcement and military defense are not." I was implying that I believe that the control of aggression would be greatly diminished without those government functions; I then went into greater detail with you, about the proliferation of private weaponry and the increased odds of its use, because you asked.
Sorry, Autolykos. This is one of those ideas that one either appreciates as kooky, or not. I think it's self-evidently anti-trade and anti-travel, as a good portion of human beings value control more than money, i.e. control of their little patch of highway, not making everyone else's day a little easier, or making a few extra bucks. And there aren't endless alternatives/other routes in the real, finite world.
Explain how capitalism must lead to Earth turning into a Death Star.
I didn't use the term "must." I said that capitalism is designed to maximize efficient use of natural resources. I mean by that that it is the fastest-running engine of resource consumption; and that it allows for the largest number of people to live at a relatively-good standard of living. This sounds great in the short-term; but over time, if unchecked, it will lead logically to resource shortages, overpopulation, and, finally, the profit-based exploitation of all available resources on Earth. In other words, it has no natural checks, no guiding authority to guard the interests of the general public.
How does a monopoly over legitimate use of coercion (i.e. a government) check itself? This is a very simple question.
Add this to your list above: It does so every single day. No, it isn't perfect; but it is functional.
Challenges to illegal search and seizure are made every single day--and often result in the innocent and criminals thrown back onto the streets.
http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2009/12/30/81483/china-loses-steel-dumping-case.html
Court fees are assessed by the court in question; but they don't go right into the pocket of the judge; you send it to the county clerk, just like today. This revenue goes to the general revenue fund established by the Treasury; and such funds are disbursed from that pool of revenue in order to pay the judge, the bailiff, etc. No direct quid pro quo allowed. I've already posted my Tenth Amendment several times, which delineates all revenue sources, including once on this thread. If you want a little more detailed explanation of its operation, check out the "The evolution towards freedom: thoughts on panarchy and minarchy" thread.
What "experience" are you talking about?
Another one for your list above. What "destructive force" is used by any liberal democracy against its people that might even suggest that they cannot be trusted with their weaponry, Autolykos? And spare me police guns: they do way more good against criminals than evil against the non-aggressive.
What makes governments always and necessarily have a vested interest in preserving the lives and the earning power of "the people"?
(Misquote/strawman, by your own definition: I never said either "must" or "necessarily." Yet I answer.) The government needs the revenue of its citizenry in order to perpetuate its existence. No people; no revenue: no government. And I use "People" sometimes to denote all citizens, not just these or those people, as well as to elevate them to the level of the Congress, and the President.
Here we go again. Another bare assertion
I know you'll bristle at this; but just once, I'd like an explanation for how your ancap alternative would work in a given set of conditions, like with everyone printing their own money. Refuse if you must, Autolykos; but if you know of a thread that addressed it already, I'd appreciate a link.
DLD, you are a man with a central plan for remaking the world into what you percieve to be a better place. how are you not a statist when it is only a statist that would want to implement a central plan?
Jargon
I'm sorry if this seems evasive, but my replies to most of your posted questions wouldn't differ much from those I gave to Autolykos on this same page. If you find them insufficient, I'll try to be more specific for you.
I stopped replying to the previous thread, because I got tired of going round and round what both of us would acknowledge is a fundamental difference of opinion about human nature. But I've since had some discussions elsewhere that might clarify a little what I mean. Some of what I post is from previous posts here; I frankly just don't feel like researching whether I've already shown you it or not. And it's all part of the picture for me. I've also been challenged quite a bit about my view of what is moral; so I included this as well.
TANSTAAFL
you are a man with a central plan for remaking the world into what you percieve to be a better place.
how are you not a statist when it is only a statist that would want to implement a central plan?
If the central plan in question is a blueprint not only for dismantling the current state and instituting local autonomy, but also for using government as a punitive tool for teaching self-reliance and self-determination, such that it acts as a transitional system to a future without government, then ultimately I am not a statist: I am a realist. I have devised a real plan for a real transition. Most of the supporters of ancapism are neither realists, nor radicals.
@ DLD
Whew, that was a doozy. First of all I think it's funny and quite fitting that you notice that women's voting rights have initiated a leftward drift in politics. By observing the state as an active agent of change they are engaged in the illusion of government. They see that the government is a thing that does things, supposedly things that people tell it to do, so we should tell it to fight poverty. This is in my opinion, and I believe in yours as well, an immature understanding of the nature of the state. I can't help but agree with this humorous observation. Yet somehow you engage partially in the psalms of the state, like forcibly altering the conditions of voluntary employment.
Now when you point out that many people are total SOB's, I don't disagree. How exactly is this an argument against AC or towards Statism?
On population: note how all developed countries have stagnant or declining birth rates. Underdeveloped countries have expansive birth rates because of the need for labor, lack of birth control, and lack of ambition beyond the family unit. Developed countries have quasi-automated production, education, birth control, and things to do beyond the family (like art, recreation, philosophy, going to the movies, etc.) Maybe the sooner we are developed, the sooner our population rate will stabilize (sorry Mises).
On nature: as a longterm hiker, I value nature also. Is there any reason why people cannot band together, pool funds, and by tracts of land for their preservation? Do corporations really want to try to turn Mt. Washington into a granite mine? Does the person who owns Mt. Washington (the State right now) really want to sell Mt. Washington as a granite mine? I think you're assuming automatically that corporations will gobble up the land and for every tree that once was there will be a steel smokestack, blotting out the sun. The wealthier a society becomes, the more it values its recreation and the less it is dedicated to laboring, for that need is more and more provided for. Thus as systems of production become more efficient and require less land, while simultaneously people become wealthier, there is ample opportunity for concerned citizens to buy up land. In fact, they already do that now with the Audobon society and the Nature Conservancy. No aggression required.
On minimum wage: You can advocate MW all you want, but you will only be increasing suffering for the least fortunate of said society. Not only are the unemployable but they cannot build their resume from the ground. People assume that low-wage workers stay in those positions for life, but in a modern market society that just isn't the case. Burger flippers are constantly being replaced by younger generations looking for positions of responsibility, and ex-burger flippers are taking their colors of experience to other employers as proof that they are employable and reliable. This is not Industrialization, where the poor must labor endlessly. We are past that and upward mobility is entirely real. In fact that is how the middle class came into existence.
You act as though there is no punishment for evil-doers within a free society but it's not true: thieves would be taken from two or threefold, and life-takers would be taken from in the ultimate. Not only is this as good as the statist version of law, it's better. It totally disincentivizes theft. Instead of a room, three square meals, and a TV, you get a period of servitude.
If you really value human well-being, why must you interfere with someone who wants a job. If there's an employer and an employee who both agree to trade their goods/services, who are you to prevent them from doing so?
Also, don't you realize that real wages rise in a market society? Technology and entrepeneurial management cut the costs of business, lowering the prices of products. So for example, a burger flipper might be getting paid a low wage, but McDonalds can sell $1 double cheeseburgers to poor people! Isn't that a positive outcome? See the way that wages rise, is this: the worker does not get the benefit of the product he creates, but he does get the benefit of the products everyone else makes. The toaster maker gets cheaper TV's and the TV maker gets cheaper toasters.
@Jargon
This is in my opinion, and I believe in yours as well, an immature understanding of the nature of the state. I can't help but agree with this humorous observation.
Thanks for being honest about your agreement. You can then understand, perhaps, why I was reluctant at first to throw that observation out there, not knowing anything about this forum. I didn't want to come across as a rabid sexist before getting a chance to establish that I have a thoughtful, serious point of view.
I was mainly pointing out that AC societies would be no less prone to this "drift" than state systems--that it doesn't matter so much how they begin: it's where they end up. But the underlying problem that I have with comparisons between the two is one of transition. It seems to me useless to speculate about an AC society as though one were already in existence (in part because this is largely a male fantasy--one that females must come to equally value somehow.)
The state, however, already exists. My direct democracy deals with what we have now, and attempts to get us to something much closer to ancapism. The process of approaching AC is, in effect, changing human nature, and is two-fold: First stop subsidizing the proliferation of loafers and the irresponsible, generally, by ending welfare supports--thus discouraging single motherhood and large families, literally making changes in the gene pool, away from such dependency.(Also very touchy.)
And then directly impose the costs of government services upon those who require them, drawing a more visible line between large government and female dependence--even as opportunities are afforded for freedom from most government contribution by solving problems without its services. My hope is that this will both raise awareness of the "drift" issue, and turn the tide toward a broader appreciation of self-reliance, even among women.
On population: note how all developed countries have stagnant or declining birth rates. Underdeveloped countries have expansive birth rates because of the need for labor, lack of birth control, and lack of ambition beyond the family unit.
More touchy topics, no? I could get into a long, un-PC discussion about cultural differences and evolutionary survival strategies; but the bottom line is that even within the U.S. and Europe there are some populations that are shrinking, and some that are growing quite well, irrespective of technological development--aided by it, in fact. Yet not all of these cultures have an underlying respect for the principles that allowed for the development in the first place. And it isn't impossible for a once-developed society to drift back into relative squalor and strife, just by virtue of population changes, effected through voting blocks, or through force of numbers. This is a growing concern in Europe, with respect to Arab populations and Muslim cultural law.
On minimum wage: You can advocate MW all you want, but you will only be increasing suffering for the least fortunate of said society. Not only are the unemployable but they cannot build their resume from the ground. People assume that low-wage workers stay in those positions for life, but in a modern market society that just isn't the case.
I've already conceded that I'd support exceptions for part-time workers; this would allow for such experience-building. But I have a problem with allowing the unfettered free market to determine the moral course of humanity. It's a huge lie that mid and large-sized companies are so competitive and efficient that they can't afford to pay low-wage workers a subsistence wage, particularly if they're no longer paying corporate or payroll taxes under my system. Everyone who's had a job in a decent-sized company knows that they have all sorts of wasteful policies at all levels. They might very well need cut no jobs at all.
And I don't buy the inviolate rightness of market valuation anyway, particularly with respect to wages. Hiring two people at $3 per hour, instead of one at $6 and one unemployed, is a distorted snapshot, not a full moving picture. Has the value of the labor really dropped in half, because of the absence of a minimum wage? Or has the door opened to de-valuing low-skilled work by virtue of a prevailing societal bias--a subjective disdain for the modest and unambitious? Can there be no dignity in the life of a person of simple needs in a just society? Does everyone have to live to work, instead of working to live?
On moral grounds alone, I say that honest, full-time workers ought to be guaranteed at least a substistence wage, at whatever job they choose. Some people don't want to be anything but a burger flipper. Why should they be forced to climb higher, just to make ends meet? And over the course of time, much like the lack of welfare, the lack of low-wage jobs, if there is one, will either encourage job-skills acquisition, or discourage large families, or both.
Also, don't you realize that real wages rise in a market society? Technology and entrepeneurial management cut the costs of business, lowering the prices of products
Yes, but among all of the cost-cutting to be done within a company, the wages of the lowest-paid workers should not be the first to yield, if they yield at all. Real wages can also rise without nominal wages falling first. There wouldn't be a need for lobbying costs, for example, under a direct democracy either; and I stymie most regulation as well:
No administrative rule or regulation, except those indispensible to the protection of public safety, shall be enforceable where, regarding the regulated, a presumption of malice, neglect or imbecility inheres in the requirements thereof: But any irreparable injury to person or to property, private or public, whose proximate cause is a business or governmental standard or procedure violative of due care and common sense shall nullify the limited liability or the official immunity of the authorizing and enforcing officers, respectively, both in civil and in criminal suits.
We may have to agree to disagree about the practicality of private police, courts, or retaliatory justice: I think it's totally unworkable. Don't feel obliged to read all of this; but here are some changes I made to improve justice:
(from Amendment VIII) All convicted prisoners shall labor no less than eight hours per day, five days per week, unless two physicians certify that they are physically or mentally incapable of as much; and only in so laboring shall able prisoners earn the privileges of hot meals, visitations, educational and recreational opportunities and personal, non-toiletry possessions within cells.
Amendment V – The intentional, knowing, reckless or criminally-negligent infliction of death or grave physical or psychological injury—a disabling injury that is not susceptible to humane, restorative care or natural, restorative healing, absent professional medical or mental health intervention— by an adult upon a minor, a post-partum human being younger than eighteen years of age, henceforth shall be a high crime: an offense so heinous and degenerate that, upon conviction and exhausted appeal of the convicted, the latter shall be confined by the state, apart from the public, until death.
(from Amendment VI) The right to a neutral audience from the jury shall attend the accused; and at the opening of trial the jurors shall be informed of this right and of the nature and cause of the accusation against the defendant; who shall take the witness stand to respond under oath to any germane questions of the presiding judge and the jurors.
The defendant, or the surrogate defendant, shall then call and question witnesses and present evidence, equally subject to the direct examination of the trial judge and the jury, and to the rulings and directives of the former, who shall guide the proceeding in a manner conducive to a full, reasoned and swift finding of fact and law.
Upon the ruling of the court that the defense has exhausted all relevant, material evidence, the judge shall call to the stand for the same full, direct examination any public officer materially engaged in the investigation, arrest or interview of the accused, including the clerk of the court, ending similarly with the aforementioned voluntary witnesses and their evidence.
(No more hiding behind defense lawyers; no more presumption of innocence, in spite of probable cause for arrest--or state prosecutor to overcome it; no more pleading the fifth; and no more passive jury: more personal accountability for all)
But to each his own, right?
I call discrimination - you don't answer my posts :(
I'll get you tomorrow. Sorry.
DarylLloydDavis: I was mainly pointing out that AC societies would be no less prone to this "drift" than state systems--that it doesn't matter so much how they begin: it's where they end up. But the underlying problem that I have with comparisons between the two is one of transition. It seems to me useless to speculate about an AC society as though one were already in existence (in part because this is largely a male fantasy--one that females must come to equally value somehow.
I was mainly pointing out that AC societies would be no less prone to this "drift" than state systems--that it doesn't matter so much how they begin: it's where they end up. But the underlying problem that I have with comparisons between the two is one of transition. It seems to me useless to speculate about an AC society as though one were already in existence (in part because this is largely a male fantasy--one that females must come to equally value somehow.
There can be no systemic drift in that which does not exist, namely 'state systems' in an AC society. It very much does matter where they begin. Beginning in an AC society would make the establishment of a state immensely risky and equally improbable. Such is the way of a society in which there is no tax farm. Every decision must be based on risk because there is no spongy mass of humans to inflict the costs on.
The state, however, already exists. My direct democracy deals with what we have now, and attempts to get us to something much closer to ancapism. The process of approaching AC is, in effect, changing human nature, and is two-fold: First stop subsidizing the proliferation of loafers and the irresponsible, generally, by ending welfare supports--thus discouraging single motherhood and large families, literally making changes in the gene pool, away from such dependency.(Also very touchy.) And then directly impose the costs of government services upon those who require them, drawing a more visible line between large government and female dependence--even as opportunities are afforded for freedom from most government contribution by solving problems without its services. My hope is that this will both raise awareness of the "drift" issue, and turn the tide toward a broader appreciation of self-reliance, even among women.
Why not streamline your constitution: The federal government shall not regulate any industries whatsoever other than the defense and law agencies. The federal government shall not infringe upon these rights: A, B, C, D, F, etc. There would still be a statist version of order that people could still wrap their heads around. Also, ceasing to subsidize parasites is not changing human nature, it is closing certain avenues to human nature. That's an important distinction. How about don't give out welfare in the first place?
This is a simple problem. Currently the incentive structure is thus: make babies, recieve more welfare money. A better incentive structure is thus: consider the cost of making a baby before committing. In other words, cut out welfare completely. Then poor people who couldn't afford it would not have eight babies and then be able. force people to pay for them
I've already conceded that I'd support exceptions for part-time workers; this would allow for such experience-building. But I have a problem with allowing the unfettered free market to determine the moral course of humanity. It's a huge lie that mid and large-sized companies are so competitive and efficient that they can't afford to pay low-wage workers a subsistence wage, particularly if they're no longer paying corporate or payroll taxes under my system.
Nothing has improved the living standards of the worker and the middle-class like relatively free markets have. This lack of competition for bidding labor may well be a result of restricted market entry. If they're paying less taxes then they'll make cheaper stuff. Then not only the worker, but everybody wins.
Everyone who's had a job in a decent-sized company knows that they have all sorts of wasteful policies at all levels. They might very well need cut no jobs at all.
And? What're you going to do? Make the choice for them?
And I don't buy the inviolate rightness of market valuation anyway, particularly with respect to wages. Hiring two people at $3 per hour, instead of one at $6 and one unemployed, is a distorted snapshot, not a full moving picture. Has the value of the labor really dropped in half, because of the absence of a minimum wage? Or has the door opened to de-valuing low-skilled work by virtue of a prevailing societal bias--a subjective disdain for the modest and unambitious? Can there be no dignity in the life of a person of simple needs in a just society? Does everyone have to live to work, instead of working to live? On moral grounds alone, I say that honest, full-time workers ought to be guaranteed at least a substistence wage, at whatever job they choose. Some people don't want to be anything but a burger flipper. Why should they be forced to climb higher, just to make ends meet? And over the course of time, much like the lack of welfare, the lack of low-wage jobs, if there is one, will either encourage job-skills acquisition, or discourage large families, or both.
The rightness of the market valuation is based on its voluntary nature. If you really wanted to, you could probably get a group of workers wages really high... ... that is, at the expense of all the other would-be workers. And then productivity would be lower. And the standard of living would rise slower. Full productivity raises the standard of living the quickest. There certainly can be dignity in the life of a person with simple needs: Real wages rise and demand for labor decreases thus increasing leisure time. On moral grounds I say, quit the demagoguing and let the people work if they want to, and let humanity as a whole grow.
Yes, but among all of the cost-cutting to be done within a company, the wages of the lowest-paid workers should not be the first to yield, if they yield at all. Real wages can also rise without nominal wages falling first. There wouldn't be a need for lobbying costs, for example, under a direct democracy either; and I stymie most regulation as well: No administrative rule or regulation, except those indispensible to the protection of public safety, shall be enforceable where, regarding the regulated, a presumption of malice, neglect or imbecility inheres in the requirements thereof: But any irreparable injury to person or to property, private or public, whose proximate cause is a business or governmental standard or procedure violative of due care and common sense shall nullify the limited liability or the official immunity of the authorizing and enforcing officers, respectively, both in civil and in criminal suits.
Maybe it shouldn't? But it is. And the last person who said this, and followed the principle, convincing business leaders to abide by it, caused the death and poverty of thousands, for ten years.
We may have to agree to disagree about the practicality of private police, courts, or retaliatory justice: I think it's totally unworkable.
How is it un workable?
Don't feel obliged to read all of this; but here are some changes I made to improve justice: (from Amendment VIII) All convicted prisoners shall labor no less than eight hours per day, five days per week, unless two physicians certify that they are physically or mentally incapable of as much; and only in so laboring shall able prisoners earn the privileges of hot meals, visitations, educational and recreational opportunities and personal, non-toiletry possessions within cells. Amendment V – The intentional, knowing, reckless or criminally-negligent infliction of death or grave physical or psychological injury—a disabling injury that is not susceptible to humane, restorative care or natural, restorative healing, absent professional medical or mental health intervention— by an adult upon a minor, a post-partum human being younger than eighteen years of age, henceforth shall be a high crime: an offense so heinous and degenerate that, upon conviction and exhausted appeal of the convicted, the latter shall be confined by the state, apart from the public, until death. (from Amendment VI) The right to a neutral audience from the jury shall attend the accused; and at the opening of trial the jurors shall be informed of this right and of the nature and cause of the accusation against the defendant; who shall take the witness stand to respond under oath to any germane questions of the presiding judge and the jurors. The defendant, or the surrogate defendant, shall then call and question witnesses and present evidence, equally subject to the direct examination of the trial judge and the jury, and to the rulings and directives of the former, who shall guide the proceeding in a manner conducive to a full, reasoned and swift finding of fact and law. Upon the ruling of the court that the defense has exhausted all relevant, material evidence, the judge shall call to the stand for the same full, direct examination any public officer materially engaged in the investigation, arrest or interview of the accused, including the clerk of the court, ending similarly with the aforementioned voluntary witnesses and their evidence. (No more hiding behind defense lawyers; no more presumption of innocence, in spite of probable cause for arrest--or state prosecutor to overcome it; no more pleading the fifth; and no more passive jury: more personal accountability for all) But to each his own, right?
Don't feel obliged to read all of this; but here are some changes I made to improve justice:
The amount of elastic clauses in there frightened me...
DarylLloydDavis:I thought about that, and decided that a secession provision would only de-legitimize the document for a majority of those to whom I wished to appeal--not ancappers, but average Americans, who still want the reassurances of a stable state. But it also occured to me that no such provision is necessary anyway: If Texas decided to secede today, what difference would it really make whether the Constitution made provision for it? I don't see how "seceding individuals" could be meaningful within any public system, since they would still be using public roads, still be subject to criminal and civil law enforcement, still feed parking meters, etc. I guess they could have the equivalent of diplomatic immunity; but that doesn't even work well now.
So in your revised system, the US federal government owns all the land. Private ownership of land within its boundaries is ultimately just a fiction, a fraud.
DarylLloydDavis:You proposed ending all legislation; and I asserted that without law, force would be more likely to settle all disputes instead. For if it isn't illegal to kill, rob, or to retaliate, and criminals still exist, then there would be no role for even private law enforcement: people would be left to arm themselves to provide for their own protection, banding together, presumably, to better ensure it--or else be individually subject to all those who don't respect the NAP. For those who don't want to join a collective, defensive group this would be one step toward NAP, and two steps back--and a real loss of freedom they enoy now. Further, I say that the government commits less real, violent aggression against its own innocent people--violates the NAP less egregiously--than real criminals would, absent government. Can I prove this? No. But I haven't heard a convincing argument otherwise.
First off, asserting that an (admittedly!) unproven argument or proposition is nevertheless true because it hasn't been disproven is an argument from ignorance. Think about that.
Second, I talked about legislation, not law. I don't consider the two to be one and the same thing. Why do you? Legislation is top-down law. Not all law has to be pronounced from on high. Before the advent of legislation, law was in the form of common law. Indeed, common law makes up a large part of legal systems even today. Common law is emergent - that is, it arises from the bottom up, through various settlements of disputes. In the absence of top-down legislation, I think one or more common-law legal systems would flourish.
DarylLloydDavis:One of the main reasons I don't often reply to your posts is that, in addition to being so snarky at times that I would be embarassed to take some of them seriously, I also get virtually no counter-argumentation from you: Accusations of logical fallacies don't represent an opposing point of view. Often you also seem either to be feigning an utter lack of understanding of basic issues, or simply to be intellectually-lazy, or completely hypocritical. Here's a quick list.
I fail to see how asking questions necessarily implies snarkiness. When I ask a question, it isn't to belittle you. I'm honestly interested in your answer.
Pointing out (what you call "accusing") logical fallacies is logical counter-argumentation. How could it not be, unless you simply don't want it to be and therefore you won't call it that? Regardless, opposing points of view are entirely unnecessary when pointing out logical fallacies.
That doesn't answer my question. Try again.
There is no objective moral system. Again, this doesn't answer my question. Try again.
DarylLloydDavis: You weren't suggesting that initially, in your reply to Clayton. You were clearly talking about the capacity to make "wasteful" and/or "inefficient" decisions not being limited to people who work in the government. If you're making a separate argument here, please be explicit about it My very next sentence was: "Mail delivery is a relatively-simple, harmless enterprise. Law enforcement and military defense are not." I was implying that I believe that the control of aggression would be greatly diminished without those government functions; I then went into greater detail with you, about the proliferation of private weaponry and the increased odds of its use, because you asked.
Yes, your very next sentence of the next paragraph was that. Typically separate paragraphs talk about separate ideas. The idea that seemed to be contained in your first paragraph was summed up in its last sentence: "Bad judgement, inefficiency and wastefulness are not exclusive to the public sector." Were you or were you not trying to cover up the institutional and legal differences between governmental and non-governmental organizations? I certainly thought that's what you were trying to do, so I felt obliged to call you out on that, as I consider it to be intellectually dishonest.
Anyway, you mistake me (and probably most other people here) for someone who doesn't want any sort of law and order whatsoever. That's absolutely not the case. The question is not "Whether order?" It's "Which order?" I want to see property protected and (what I call) justice served - but I don't think that will happen as much if the means to protect property and serve justice are monopolized.
DarylLloydDavis:Sorry, Autolykos. This is one of those ideas that one either appreciates as kooky, or not. I think it's self-evidently anti-trade and anti-travel, as a good portion of human beings value control more than money, i.e. control of their little patch of highway, not making everyone else's day a little easier, or making a few extra bucks. And there aren't endless alternatives/other routes in the real, finite world.
How much, exactly, is this "good portion"? Can you delimit it in actual quantitative terms? And if the notion is "self-evidently anti-trade and anti-travel", then surely you can demonstrate its self-evidence through proof by contradiction. So go on, then.
The fact that "there aren't endless alternatives for routes in the real, finite world" is irrelevant. Part of your problem, as I see it, seems to be that you don't see a lot of choices where they nevertheless exist. You, like so many other people today, have "choice blinders" on. I bet you live your life constantly thinking you have "no choice but to do X". If so, I think that's such a shame.
DarylLloydDavis:I didn't use the term "must." I said that capitalism is designed to maximize efficient use of natural resources. I mean by that that it is the fastest-running engine of resource consumption; and that it allows for the largest number of people to live at a relatively-good standard of living. This sounds great in the short-term; but over time, if unchecked, it will lead logically to resource shortages, overpopulation, and, finally, the profit-based exploitation of all available resources on Earth. In other words, it has no natural checks, no guiding authority to guard the interests of the general public. [Emphasis added.]
In other words, you think capitalism must (logically speaking) lead to Earth turning into a Death Star. You may not have used the word "must" before, but you might as well have. So please actually explain to me now how capitalism must (again, logically speaking) lead to Earth turning into a Death Star.
DarylLloydDavis: How does a monopoly over legitimate use of coercion (i.e. a government) check itself? This is a very simple question. Add this to your list above: It does so every single day. No, it isn't perfect; but it is functional.
Do you even read what you type? Here's a recap of this exchange, in case you missed it:
Me: How does a monopoly over legitimate use of coercion (i.e. a government) check itself? This is a very simple question.
You: It does.
Do you see how that does not in any way answer my question? Now please try again.
DarylLloydDavis:Challenges to illegal search and seizure are made every single day--and often result in the innocent and criminals thrown back onto the streets.
How often these days? Do you really know? Or are you just pulling claims out of thin air?
Regardless, this doesn't refute my point about a monopoly over legitimate use of coercion being allowed to define what "legitimate use of coercion" itself is - because it doesn't address it at all. Try again.
DarylLloydDavis:http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2009/12/30/81483/china-loses-steel-dumping-case.html
I'm aware that Chinese companies have "dumped" steel in the US. Your phrase was "when China drives steel manufacturers out of business here". Given your use of the word "when" along with the simple present tense, you're either referring to a habitual situation (i.e. "China habitually drives steel manufacturers out of business here") or a future situation (i.e. "China will drive steel manufacturers out of business here"). In fact, with the habitual situation, the assumption is that that situation will continue into the future. So either way, you're making a claim of certainty about the future. There is no logical way for you to do this - which was my point. Try again.
DarylLloydDavis:Court fees are assessed by the court in question; but they don't go right into the pocket of the judge; you send it to the county clerk, just like today. This revenue goes to the general revenue fund established by the Treasury; and such funds are disbursed from that pool of revenue in order to pay the judge, the bailiff, etc. No direct quid pro quo allowed. I've already posted my Tenth Amendment several times, which delineates all revenue sources, including once on this thread. If you want a little more detailed explanation of its operation, check out the "The evolution towards freedom: thoughts on panarchy and minarchy" thread.
Maybe I misunderstood that part of your post. It sounded to me like courts would be paid by (losing) litigants, but judges wouldn't be paid by the courts. The implication of this is that judges would thus be paid out of some other fund, which - given your reference to "a public pool of revenue" - further implies taxation. If you mean that judges' salaries would be paid out of the courts' funds, but not directly paid by (losing) litigants, then I stand corrected here.
DarylLloydDavis: What "experience" are you talking about? Another one for your list above. What "destructive force" is used by any liberal democracy against its people that might even suggest that they cannot be trusted with their weaponry, Autolykos? And spare me police guns: they do way more good against criminals than evil against the non-aggressive.
That doesn't answer my question. Try again. It's up to you to explain exactly what you mean by the term "experience", because you were the one who made the claim that "experience has born out the relative trustworthiness of liberal democracies in refraining from a use of destructive force against their own populations". I did not make that claim.
DarylLloydDavis:(Misquote/strawman, by your own definition: I never said either "must" or "necessarily." Yet I answer.) The government needs the revenue of its citizenry in order to perpetuate its existence. No people; no revenue: no government. And I use "People" sometimes to denote all citizens, not just these or those people, as well as to elevate them to the level of the Congress, and the President.
Wrong, it's not a strawman or misquote (I wasn't even quoting you - if had been, I would've used quotation marks). You wrote that "governments have a vested interest in preserving the lives and the earning power of the People". You did not qualify that statement, so logically speaking, it's an unqualified claim, i.e. "governments always and necessarily have a vested interest in preserving the lives and the earning power of the People". The fact that you didn't actually use the words "always and necessarily" is irrelevant - they're implied in any logically unqualified claim.
Yes, the government needs the revenue of "its" citizenry in order to perpetuate its existence. Businesses also need the revenue of "their" customers in order to perpetuate their existence. However, the way that governments obtain revenue is different from the way that business obtain revenue. Businesses obtain it by offering things that people want to buy at the prices asked for. Governments obtain it by threatening people with taking even more, kidnapping them, imprisoning them, and even assaulting and murdering them if they resist. I'd say that's a big difference. It also goes against the notion that governments have a vested interest in preserving the lives and the earning power of the people. One must qualify that statement for it to accurately reflect reality: governments have a vested interest in preserving the lives and the earning power of enough people so that it can continue to obtain revenue from them by the above-stated means. There are other implications of this that I can get into later.
DarylLloydDavis:I know you'll bristle at this; but just once, I'd like an explanation for how your ancap alternative would work in a given set of conditions, like with everyone printing their own money. Refuse if you must, Autolykos; but if you know of a thread that addressed it already, I'd appreciate a link.
Again, you don't provide any sort of logical or even empirical support for your bare assertion. Try again.
But in another vein, here - where do you think money originally came from? I'm not being snarky here - I'm honestly interested in your answer.