*group hug*
Where there is no property there is no justice; a proposition as certain as any demonstration in Euclid
Fools! not to see that what they madly desire would be a calamity to them as no hands but their own could bring
nirgrahamUK: *group hug*
Not sure that Hoppe is down with that.
GilesStratton:In which case you're a utopian. No system will ensure property rights will be protected all the time.
GilesStratton:Well, I'll give you a clue. The answer to the latter isn't libertarians, the answer to the former is nobody because it isn't economic to do so.
GilesStratton:"The anarchists" as you know them will always be an extreme minority, even without the state. In any case, these anarchists haven't done much more than post some videos on Youtube so far, so I wouldn't count on it.
GilesStratton:Perhaps, but not likely. In any case they'd run into an armed populace supported by their insurance company. So it's not a problem.
GilesStratton:Anarchists won't bring down the state, entrepreneurs will outcompete it.
Marko:Apples and oranges. I`m not talking about a system that prevents all violations, including from the criminal elements. I am talking about a system where violations are not institutionalised - ie a part of the system itself.
Nor would violations be as I'm describing it, unless you're saying that the moment an insurance company violates the NAP aggression becomes "institutionalised", in which case you've twisted the meaning of the word institutionalised.
Marko:Only if you live in a fantasy world. What is economical is not the only thing that drives humans beings. It is not economical for an Iraqi to stand up, fight the occupation and risk his life, jet plenty stil do it. The economical thing would be to either conform or seek refuge abroad, jet they stay and risk life and limb.
Only a competing provider of defense would have the resources necessary for what you're talking about. Needless to say companies do what economical, if not they're outcompeted.
Any company who marched into a neighbourhood on account of any minor violations of "justice" would have exceedingly high costs. They'd lose customers to the insurer who doesn't care about the plight of the black homosexual because it's not economically viable to.
Marko:And that is not even taking into account protecting a black guy from racists vandals would be great PR, so it would probably be economical to do it for free, as it would mean free advertisement.
Being seen as an aggressor probably isn't the best PR for a compan, but ignoring that. The company may have a very good reputation, if it can't compete with the low costs of the other insurers because it constantly feels the need to march into communities to save oppressed minorities it's going to go out of business. That sort of behaviour only works when the "business" can socialize its costs (e.g. the state).
But let's assume that this isn't an insurance company but a group of philosophically, socially liberal minded anarchists who can't stand to see the oppression of a negro. Well if they went in there, their insurance provider wouldn't support them so they'd be left to fight the entire community and their provider of insurance.
Marko:You don`t what are the anarchists as I know them.
Ok, perhaps you meant anarchists in universities. They're doing slightly more than those caricaturing themselves on Youtube, yes. But they won't lead the "revolution".
Marko:What, an insurance company is going to protect the right of a vandal to break windows?
They're not going to support it, they're just going to turn a blind eye.
Marko:Yes enterpreneurs outcompeted the Soviet Union, eh? As I remmember it, it took a horde of people on the streets and some tank commnders that refused obediance to the regime. In other wods it took a revolution. Like it always does.
Because Russia is a great stateless society now. Or not. In reality there was no revolution in Russia, the state apparatus changed hands from being "publicly" owned by a political elite to being "privately" owned by the new corporate elite, who are more often than not the same people. So you tell me, did the Russian "revolution" work?
In any case, those people were out on the streets because they didn't have enough food. Once again, it comes down to economics. If you really think people are going to risk being shot "for liberty", you're clueless. Most of the people on these forums wouldn't do it, let alone the average man who just wants to put food on the table for his kids.
"You don't need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows"
Bob Dylan
liberty student: nirgrahamUK: *group hug* Not sure that Hoppe is down with that.
Probably not. Only hippies group hug. Hippies and communists.
Market anarchist, Linux geek, aspiring Perl hacker, and student of the neo-Aristotelians, the classical individualist anarchists, and the Austrian school.
wombatron: Only hippies group hug. Hippies and communists.
and christian sports teams?
that's quite the formidable triumvirate
GilesStratton:Only a competing provider of defense would have the resources necessary for what you're talking about. Needless to say companies do what economical, if not they're outcompeted. Any company who marched into a neighbourhood on account of any minor violations of "justice" would have exceedingly high costs. They'd lose customers to the insurer who doesn't care about the plight of the black homosexual because it's not economically viable to.
You are caught up in your own private little world. "A competing provider of defense"? Yes only a provider of defense can provide defense. Thats basic logic. But just about anything can be a provider of defense, it does not need to be a for-profit company.
GilesStratton:But let's assume that this isn't an insurance company but a group of philosophically, socially liberal minded anarchists who can't stand to see the oppression of a negro. Well if they went in there, their insurance provider wouldn't support them so they'd be left to fight the entire community and their provider of insurance.
Again, your private little world. Who the hell cares about your insurance providers? Yeah no insurance, whatever. So freaking what? I wipe my arse with your insurance. In anarchy, my clan is my insurance.And are you insane or something? They aren`t going to fight no community. They are going to post guards and try to get the vandal to pay for the damages if his identity is known, as authorished by a decision of the victim`s private court.Unless you are trying to say your racists have gonne feral and are going to try to smash more of the black guy`s property albeit it is now defended?
GilesStratton:Ok, perhaps you meant anarchists in universities.
Or perhaps I didn`t mean those. But you love to stick words into my mouth don`t you?
GilesStratton:They're not going to support it, they're just going to turn a blind eye.
Which contradicts what you said earlier. in this very post of yours "they'd be left to fight the entire community and their provider of insurance". You can`t even stay consistent within the confines of a single post?? And anyway what is your point now then? So they are going to turn a blind eye? So? What is the point? Why even say that? It`s not like the black guy had reasons to expect anything from an insurance company he was not a client of in the first place.
GilesStratton:TBecause Russia is a great stateless society now. Or not. In reality there was no revolution in Russia, the state apparatus changed hands from being "publicly" owned by a political elite to being "privately" owned by the new corporate elite, who are more often than not the same people. So you tell me, did the Russian "revolution" work? In any case, those people were out on the streets because they didn't have enough food. Once again, it comes down to economics. If you really think people are going to risk being shot "for liberty", you're clueless. Most of the people on these forums wouldn't do it, let alone the average man who just wants to put food on the table for his kids.
I pitty your ignorance. And your propensity for going on a tangent. What are you talking about?? Two whole paragraphs of putting words into my mouth? Whoah. Why don`t you just argue this whole deal with yourself then? Just substitute my posts with what you think I would say.
And BTW don`t think I didn`t notice you conveniantly dodged the possibility I raised that Black Nationalists would get involved for ideological/ethnic sentiment reasons.
Hans Hermann Hoppe: Furthermore, as a result of the continual cooperation of various insurers and arbitrators, a tendency toward the unification of property and contract law and the harmonization of the rules of procedure, evidence, and conflict resolution would be set in motion. Through buying protection-insurance, everyone would share in the common goal of striving to reduce conflict and enhance security. Moreover, every single conflict and damage claim, regardless of where and by or against whom, would fall into the jurisdiction of one or more specific insurance agencies and would be handled either by an individual insurer's "domestic" law or by the "international" law provisions and procedures agreed upon in advance by a group of insurers.
As insurers began to work together, their shared focus would be contract enforcement. Now if members of a church agreed not to be homosexual they could perhaps enforce that contract. If an uninsured homosexual got mugged by members of this church, No PDA would defend membres of this church. PDAs which protect homosexuals would have an incentive to stop such violence. As Hoppe describes elsewhere in the Idea of a Private Law Society:
Hans Hermann Hoppe: Lastly, it is worth pointing out that while states as tax-funded agencies can – and do – engage in the large-scale prosecution of victimless crimes such as "illegal drug" use, prostitution, or gambling, these "crimes" would tend to be of little or no concern within a system of freely funded protection agencies. "Protection" against such "crimes" would require higher insurance premiums, but since these "crimes," unlike genuine crimes against persons and property, do not create victims, very few people would be willing to spend money on such "protection." .. On the other hand, the very same system of private law and order production would promote a tendency toward the unification of law. The "domestic" law – Catholic, Jewish, Roman, etc. – would apply only to the person and property of those who had chosen it, the insurer, and all others insured by the same insurer under the same law. Canon law, for instance, would apply only to professed Catholics and deal solely with intra-Catholic conflict and conflict resolution. Yet it is also possible, of course, that a Catholic might come into conflict with the subscriber of some other law code, e.g., a Muslim. If both law codes reached the same or a similar conclusion, no difficulties exist.However, if competing law codes arrived at distinctly different conclusions (as they would at least in some cases), a problem arises. "Domestic" (intra-group) law would be useless, but every insured person would want protection against the contingency of inter-group conflicts as well. In this situation it cannot be expected that one insurer and the subscribers of its law code simply subordinate their judgment to that of another insurer and its law. Rather, for all the parties involved there is only one credible and acceptable way out of this predicament.From the outset, every insurer would be compelled to submit itself and its clients to arbitration by a truly independent third party. This party would not only be an independent entity, however, but at the same time the unanimous choice of both parties. It would be agreed upon because of its commonly perceived ability to find mutually agreeable (fair) solutions in cases of inter-group disagreement. Moreover, if an arbitrator failed in this task and arrived at conclusions that were perceived as "unfair" or "biased" by either one of the insurers or their clients, this person or agency would not likely be chosen as an arbitrator in the future.
..
On the other hand, the very same system of private law and order production would promote a tendency toward the unification of law. The "domestic" law – Catholic, Jewish, Roman, etc. – would apply only to the person and property of those who had chosen it, the insurer, and all others insured by the same insurer under the same law. Canon law, for instance, would apply only to professed Catholics and deal solely with intra-Catholic conflict and conflict resolution. Yet it is also possible, of course, that a Catholic might come into conflict with the subscriber of some other law code, e.g., a Muslim. If both law codes reached the same or a similar conclusion, no difficulties exist.However, if competing law codes arrived at distinctly different conclusions (as they would at least in some cases), a problem arises. "Domestic" (intra-group) law would be useless, but every insured person would want protection against the contingency of inter-group conflicts as well. In this situation it cannot be expected that one insurer and the subscribers of its law code simply subordinate their judgment to that of another insurer and its law. Rather, for all the parties involved there is only one credible and acceptable way out of this predicament.From the outset, every insurer would be compelled to submit itself and its clients to arbitration by a truly independent third party. This party would not only be an independent entity, however, but at the same time the unanimous choice of both parties. It would be agreed upon because of its commonly perceived ability to find mutually agreeable (fair) solutions in cases of inter-group disagreement. Moreover, if an arbitrator failed in this task and arrived at conclusions that were perceived as "unfair" or "biased" by either one of the insurers or their clients, this person or agency would not likely be chosen as an arbitrator in the future.
To paraphrase the existence of competition causes a tendency towards libertarianism in relations between PDAs. As such no PDA would agree to defend the rights of the lyncher after obligating itself to this style of libertarianism.
Marko:You are caught up in your own private little world. "A competing provider of defense"? Yes only a provider of defense can provide defense. Thats basic logic. But just about anything can be a provider of defense, it does not need to be a company.
How so? A company that specializes in the production of defense will be the best suited for that task, this is basic economics: the division of labour. If what you're trying to say is that small, more informal providers of defense would be able to challenge large, multinational insurance companies with vast resources at their disposal, it is you that is caught up in "your own private little world".
But, out of curiosity, what organizations might have the capability of challenging insurance companies?
Marko:Again, your private little world. Who the hell cares about your insurance providers? Yeah no insurance, whatever. So freaking what? I wipe my arse with your insurance. In anarchy, my clan is my insurance.
Well that's wonderful, but you and your clan will be up against multinational insurance companies. So, you may well "wipe your arse with insurance" but when I rob your house, if you don't have insurance everybody is going to turn a blind eye. In other words, you're on your own.
This is quite the display of childishness though, it would be far easier for you to merely concede the point.
Marko:And are you insane or something? They aren`t going to fight no community. They are going to post guards and try to get the vandal to pay for the damages if his identity is known.
And what, you think the community is going to allow "guards" to be posted outside these houses? Not likely. And if they find the identity of the vandal his provider of insurance will tell them to go away, or else they're going to be involved in a fight they can't win.
Marko:Unless you are trying to say your racists have gonne feral and are going to try to smash more of the black guy`s property albeit it is now defended?
Not relevant.
Marko:Which contradicts what you said earlier. in this very post of yours "they'd be left to fight the entire community and their provider of insurance". You can`t even stay consistent within the confines of a single post??
If you actually understood what I said, it wouldn't be inconsistant, so try again.
Marko:And anyway what is your point now then? So they are going to turn a blind eye? So? What is the point? Why even say that? It`s not like the black guy had reasons to expect anything from an insurance company he was not a client of in the first place.
But that's the whole point of this discussion, providers of defense won't always act in a manner that Roderick Long and Aristotle would approve of. The case of the man offering candy to children illustrates this better, but even now we see that producers of defense want to make money. They don't care about the rights of a black homosexual living in the middle of racist homophobes because it won't make money. As such that black man has to defend his own rights or he might as well not have any.
If you don't disagree with this I have to wonder why you picked the argument in the first place.
Marko: I pitty your ignorance. And your propensity for going on a tangent. What are you talking about?? Two whole paragraphs of putting words into my mouth? Whoah. Why don`t you just argue this whole deal with yourself then? Just substitute my posts with what you think I would say.
I pity your inability to debate properly. I didn't put words in your mouth, you said the Russians acheived revolution because of people on the street. They didn't, they swapped one set of rulers for another. In fact, that barely even managed that.
So you were wrong about the Russian revolution. It's funny that AE emphasized the role of the entrepreneur and you fail to apply this to strategy.
Marko:And BTW don`t think I didn`t notice you conveniantly dodged the possibility I raised that Black Nationalists would get involved for ideological/ethnic sentiment reasons.
I didn't dodge the issue, I just figured the appropriate reponse was "so would the Klu Klux Klan in that case", but then I realised things would get very silly if we chose to go down that route. It's a shame you can't remain civil.
GilesStratton:But, out of curiosity, what organizations might have the capability of challenging insurance companies?.
GilesStratton:Well that's wonderful, but you and your clan will be up against multinational insurance companies. So, you may well "wipe your arse with insurance" but when I rob your house, if you don't have insurance everybody is going to turn a blind eye. In other words, you're on your own.
GilesStratton:And what, you think the community is going to allow "guards" to be posted outside these houses? Not likely.
GilesStratton:And if they find the identity of the vandal his provider of insurance will tell them to go away, or else they're going to be involved in a fight they can't win.
GilesStratton:I pity your inability to debate properly. I didn't put words in your mouth, you said the Russians acheived revolution because of people on the street. They didn't, they swapped one set of rulers for another. In fact, that barely even managed that.
GilesStratton:I didn't dodge the issue, I just figured the appropriate reponse was "so would the Klu Klux Klan in that case", but then I realised things would get very silly if we chose to go down that route. It's a shame you can't remain civil.
Marko:Why don`t you tell me what has historicaly been by far the most powerful non-statist military force? Maybe it was an insurance company, LOL.
Marko:Yeah, except you once again chose to bury your head in the sand rather than face my point. Leave your speculation at the side. How was historicaly law provided when its provision was not monopolised by the state? How is it stil provided in many parts of the world where the state is weak? How is it provided in the hills of Albania? I`ll give you a hint, it again has nothing to do with any insurance companies.
Red herrings, the argument would have worked whether I had claimed security would be provided by insurance companies or whatever you envision producing defense and security.
Anyway, I'll address your ignorance nonetheless. What you fail to understand is that when one spends money of defense, what one is actually paying is an insurance premium. As such is follows the best companies suited to provide security would be the multinational insurance companies. This is because the better the good of defense is provided the lower the damage claims will be the cheaper the costs of the insurance company will be, thus the emphasis will be on preventing crime as opposed to punishing it.
The fact of the matter is that if one wishes to purchase defense they expect the provider of defense to be capable of supplying it, insurance company that happen to often be bigger than governments, are certainly capable, and have an interest in doing so.
Perhaps in future you'll refrain from laughing at positions you don't understand and ridiculing positions that you haven't done the reading on. Fortunately for you there's plenty of material on this (Tannehils, Hoppe).
Enough of this tangent though.
Marko:What are you talking about? They don`t get a say in wether the black guy allows people on his property. You`re getting worse on property rights by the minute.
What you meant to say is they don't have the right to decide whether or not has guards on his property. This may, or may not, be correct. What matters in reality is that the black man having guards on his property might not be good for business, and that means removing them from the community.
Of course, this is the perfect place to bring up entrepreneurial communities, but I don't want to get distracted with that.
Marko:LOL. How do you know it`s a fight they can`t win? Actually in a shooting war between economicaly and ideologicaly driven people the second usually tend to win. Particularly when they are in the right.
A few ideologically minded anarchists against multinational insurance companies. If you were correct, we'd have seen the state collapse a long time ago.
Marko:You`re a big fan of the dictionaries aren`t you? So why don`t you do me a favour and look up "revolution" will you?
How can any self described libertarian claim that swapping one set of rulers for another constitutes a revolution. Moreover this has gone off topic, you pointed to the Russian revolution as a success of people on the streets in an attempt to bring freedom. It didn't, so stop moving the goalposts.
Marko:Yeah it`s silly, because your whole premise is absurdly ridicilous. Ku Klux Klan is going to descend on some town to defend the right of a white vandal to destroy property of a black guy?? Only if they are as bad on private property as you are.
I only posted the Klu Klux Klan remark since you'd already speculated that the Black Panther woulds team up with the oppressed negro to bring the evil white men to justice. If you believe that it's not to absurd to say that the Neo Nazis and the Klu Klux Klan may team up to fend off the black invaders.
Marko:I`ll bet my arse your racists would sooner pool money and buy off the black guy to enjoy their segregation rather than get themselves into an (always expensive) conflict over it. Even your own economic argument works against you.
Why? I've never denied that. And it may well be the case, in fact it more than likely would be. But our starting point wasn't wondering what the white racists would do. We were trying to figure out what the provider of defense would do given aggression against the negro.
Your scenario is absurd on so many levels and there are so many reasons why it is so that you choose to ignore.1.) Why wouldn`t the black guy have a commercial defense provider of his own? As long as black guys in otherwise all-white racist enclaves have some money to spend on security they represent an untapped market, so if nobody else taps into that market it is inevitable a company will emerge that will specialise in protecting black guys in racist white neighbourhoods. Yes, to protect isolated black people in white racist neigbourhood may be costly, but then such blacks would pressumably be willing to spend more on defense, so the service does not need to be drasticaly sub-standard.2.) Even if the black guy didn`t have a PDA of his own (because he can not afford it, since it is too cost prohibitive) it is almost certain some PDA would protect him as part of their charitable activities since offereing free protection to a black guy from racists is just about the best addvertisiment you can imagine.3.) Even if no PDA took him under his wing of his own accord it is unlikely, the rest of the black community would not just watch as his rights get assaulted but would instead try to raise necessary money to subscribe him to a PDA. Non-racist non-blacks would chipp in too.4.) If the black guy stil had no access of any kind to any PDA, he would stil have a need for defense, which he would then seek to satisfy through non-commercial chanells. Before accumulation of capital such defense was provided by a clan which was functionaly little more than a pact between people that they would back each other up in case a dispute of some sort escalated into a conflict. (Which is all that took to make sure disputes almost never escalated into conflict, despite the fact clans were of drasticaly different sizes and strengths.) There is no reason why he would not seek to form a modern day clan, ie a militia by entering into a pact with people similarly threatened in neigbourhoods not too far away. Unless all of them found themselves under attack at the same time they could constitute a significant force.You can talk about division of labour all you want, but the fact is despite the division of labour most people stil do their own cooking and housekeeping. Most likely in a stateless society everyone would continue to contribute towards defense of their own property in person and only the most threatened or the wealthiest would resort to contracting proffesionals.5.) Even if the black guy was not successful in joining a regional militia of threatened blacks, it is absolutely inconciveable there would not be enough young black males around that would not be motivated enough to come to his aid solely for reasons of ethnic solidarity, expecting no pay.Brush up on ethnicaly mixed territories in the state of raised ethnic tension. Induviduals always come to the aid of their beleaguered ethnic kin, of their own accord, expecting no compensation.6.) Even if everything else failed it is more than likely purely ideologicaly driven propertyists would show up to protect the black guy. Maybe they would be alerted to his plight by a media campaign of non-racists. In a stateless society there is going to be far more activisim than today. Presently there is no activism, because it is futile. Since success requires influencing the state, influencing outcomes on the ground one by one is meaningless because if they go against the state imposed status quo the state monopoly is simply going to anull them. Thus the only activisms that exists today are the activisms that are partly encouraged by the state, or at the very least find themselves in the rare position that they can reasonably expect to influence the state establishement in some way. (Enviromentalism, civil rights movement of the 60s...) ________________And finally and most importantly your scenario is no different from a scenario where a refusal of an old lady - living alone, too poor to hire a PDA, too nearsighted to fire a gun, and too weak to wield a dagger - to sell her house and move away is stalling a giant construction project of an enormous corporation. Now are you going to argue that the corporation can just send its goons to smash the little old ladies window and nobody is going to do anything about it and she will be coerced into selling? No?Then how exactly is that different from a harassed black guy in a white racist neigbourhood?
GilesStratton: How can any self described libertarian claim that swapping one set of rulers for another constitutes a revolution. Moreover this has gone off topic, you pointed to the Russian revolution as a success of people on the streets in an attempt to bring freedom. It didn't, so stop moving the goalposts.
Your consistent attempts to place words into my mouth annoy me to no end. They also show your arguments to be barren. And it is actually very amusing how you reversed your thinking from last time when you insisted on meaning of the word as defined by dictionaries, which are now suddenly not good enough for you?Why don`t you simply ask me what I meant, if you have trouble comprehending?
GilesStratton: Marko:Yeah it`s silly, because your whole premise is absurdly ridicilous. Ku Klux Klan is going to descend on some town to defend the right of a white vandal to destroy property of a black guy?? Only if they are as bad on private property as you are. I only posted the Klu Klux Klan remark since you'd already speculated that the Black Panther woulds team up with the oppressed negro to bring the evil white men to justice. If you believe that it's not to absurd to say that the Neo Nazis and the Klu Klux Klan may team up to fend off the black invaders.
But you yourself said conflict is cost prohibitive. Why would whites want to enter into a conflict with the Black Panthers? Your whites may be racists, but that doesn`t mean they would want neo nazis to turn their neigbourhoods into a battle zone in order to protect the rights of one vandal to damage black owned property. Or do you take racists to be nutcases?And anyways so what even if there was a shooting battle between the Panthers and the neo nazis? Surely nobodoy would get the idea to walk up to the black guy`s house and break his window now, would it? Not in the middle of all that shooting, eh? So, problem solved.
GilesStratton: A few ideologically minded anarchists against multinational insurance companies. If you were correct, we'd have seen the state collapse a long time ago.
Again putting words into my mouth. Actually I am talking about Freikorps, IRA, Viet Cong, FNLA, Sandinistas, Bushwackers, Amal, 1920 Revolution Brigades, VMRO.... Ideological enough for you? Yeah, unwinable LOL. Yugoslav Partisans had 800,000 men under arms by the end of the war. 3rd Reich could not subdue them, but an insurance company could? Don`t make me laugh.
Marko:1.) Why wouldn`t the black guy have a commercial defense provider of his own? As long as black guys in otherwise all-white racist enclaves have some money to spend on security they represent an untapped market, so if nobody else taps into that market it is inevitable a company will emerge that will specialise in protecting black guys in racist white neighbourhoods. Yes, to protect isolated black people in white racist neigbourhood may be costly, but then such blacks would pressumably be willing to spend more on defense, so the service does not need to be drasticaly sub-standard.
Because the costs of defending the black individual are exceedingly high. In order to make protecting him worthwhile he's going to have to pay very high premiums. Now even if he does that one can't be certain that the provider of defense will do anything since it would be dangerous for them to ask for money from the person who did it, since they'd risk coming into conflict with the insurance company of rest of the people in that community. Now it may well be the case that everything turns out fine and the white man has to pay restitution, but my point was merely that one can't be sure of that. Hence, the old man who gives candy to 5 year olds is a far better example.
Marko:2.) Even if the black guy didn`t have a PDA of his own (because he can not afford it, since it is too cost prohibitive) it is almost certain some PDA would protect him as part of their charitable activities since offereing free protection to a black guy from racists is just about the best addvertisiment you can imagine.
No, it's not. It's a waste of money, especially since the image isn't that good anyway.
Marko:3.) Even if no PDA took him under his wing of his own accord it is unlikely, the rest of the black community would not just watch as his rights get assaulted but would instead try to raise necessary money to subscribe him to a PDA. Non-racist non-blacks would chipp in too.
This is just meaningless speculation now. As I said, if this happens Hitler will come back to live and gas all the blacks that try to demand justice.
Marko:There is no reason why he would not seek to form a modern day clan, ie a militia by entering into a pact with people similarly threatened in neigbourhoods not too far away. Unless all of them found themselves under attack at the same time they could constitute a significant force.
And what, these clans would represent a threat to multinational insurance companies? You're deluding yourself and making silly, ad hoc arguments.
Marko:You can talk about division of labour all you want, but the fact is despite the division of labour most people stil do their own cooking and housekeeping. Most likely in a stateless society everyone would continue to contribute towards defense of their own property in person and only the most threatened or the wealthiest would resort to contracting proffesionals.
Yes, some people could go without insurance. Your analogy is irrelevant. A better analogy is who is going to win a competition for cleanest house, somebody who does their own cleaning between work and cooking or somebody who has a group of professional cleaners doing it for them,
Marko:5.) Even if the black guy was not successful in joining a regional militia of threatened blacks, it is absolutely inconciveable there would not be enough young black males around that would not be motivated enough to come to his aid solely for reasons of ethnic solidarity, expecting no pay.Brush up on ethnicaly mixed territories in the state of raised ethnic tension. Induviduals always come to the aid of their beleaguered ethnic kin, of their own accord, expecting no compensation.
And? It'd be like the bloods against Blackwater, there's no doubt who would win. This is just getting silly now.
Marko:And finally and most importantly your scenario is no different from a scenario where a refusal of an old lady - living alone, too poor to hire a PDA, too nearsighted to fire a gun, and too weak to wield a dagger - to sell her house and move away is stalling a giant construction project of an enormous corporation. Now are you going to argue that the corporation can just send its goons to smash the little old ladies window and nobody is going to do anything about it and she will be coerced into selling? No?Then how exactly is that different from a harassed black guy in a white racist neigbourhood?
Because in a community of white people, little old ladies receive far greater sympathy than black guys who move in where they're not wanted. Fortunately manoralism would solve this, but I don't want to discuss that here.
Marko:Again putting words into my mouth. Actually I am talking about Freikorps, IRA, Viet Cong, FNLA, Sandinistas, Bushwackers, Amal, 1920 Revolution Brigades.... Ideological enough for you? Yeah, unwinable LOL. Yugoslav Partisans had 800,000 men under arms by the end of the war. 3rd Reich could not subdue them, but an insurance company could? Don`t make me laugh.
The thing is, we're not talking about anything the size of this. Unless you're speculating that half the country will rise up in indignation about the treatment of a poor negro?
You're delusional.
Marko:But you yourself said conflict is cost prohibitive. Why would whites want to enter into a conflict with the Black Panthers? Your whites may be racists, but that doesn`t mean they would want neo nazis to turn their neigbourhoods into a battle zone in order to protect the rights of one vandal to damage black owned property. Or do you take racists to be nutcases?And anyways so what even if there was a shooting battle between the Panthers and the neo nazis? Surely nobodoy would get the idea to walk up to the black guy`s house and break his window now, would it? Not in the middle of all that shooting, eh?
What are you talking about? Conflict is expensive, nobody would be picking fights with the Black Panther, and I've never said that. I was showing how silly it was for you to mention that, it's speculation.
What exactly would the Black Panthers do anyway? Lynch the cracker that broke the black guy's window? No insurance company who wants to keep business will let that happen. Anyway this is devolving into useless, silly speculation. The example of the pervert in the part was far better.
Marko:Your consistent attempts to place words into my mouth annoy me to no end. They also show your arguments to be barren. And it is actually very amusing how you reversed your thinking from last time when you insisted on meaning of the word as defined by dictionaries, which are now suddenly not good enough for you?Why don`t you simply ask me what I meant, if you have trouble comprehending?
You're just shifting the goalposts, as you have been this whole debate. You've gone so far off topic as to talk about the Black Panthers getting involved or whatever.
The fact is you disagree with my statement that a libertarian revolution won't happen by putting people on the streets, you claimed this can work citing Russia as an example. I said that no libertarian can look upon the Russian revolution as a success and you start asking me to provide dictionary definitions? It's not relevant.
Go speculate about the actions of a the Black Panthers to somebody who cares.
GilesStratton: Hence, the old man who gives candy to 5 year olds is a far better example.
GilesStratton: And what, these clans would represent a threat to multinational insurance companies? You're deluding yourself and making silly, ad hoc arguments.
GilesStratton: And? It'd be like the bloods against Blackwater, there's no doubt who would win. This is just getting silly now.
GilesStratton: Because in a community of white people, little old ladies receive far greater sympathy than black guys who move in where they're not wanted. Fortunately manoralism would solve this, but I don't want to discuss that here.
GilesStratton: The thing is, we're not talking about anything the size of this. Unless you're speculating that half the country will rise up in indignation about the treatment of a poor negro? You're delusional.
GilesStratton:What are you talking about? Conflict is expensive, nobody would be picking fights with the Black Panther, and I've never said that. I was showing how silly it was for you to mention that, it's speculation. What exactly would the Black Panthers do anyway? Lynch the cracker that broke the black guy's window? No insurance company who wants to keep business will let that happen. Anyway this is devolving into useless, silly speculation.
GilesStratton:The example of the pervert in the part was far better.
GilesStratton:You're just shifting the goalposts, as you have been this whole debate. You've gone so far off topic as to talk about the Black Panthers getting involved or whatever.
GilesStratton:The fact is you disagree with my statement that a libertarian revolution won't happen by putting people on the streets, you claimed this can work citing Russia as an example. I said that no libertarian can look upon the Russian revolution as a success and you start asking me to provide dictionary definitions? It's not relevant.
GilesStratton:Go speculate about the actions of a the Black Panthers to somebody who cares.
You've been going off topic and it's got the point where this whole thing is ridiculous. You claim that clans and militias will get involved to help a single negro? Insurance companies would defend the property of their clients. You've dragged this whole thing off topic to the point where you're speculating about the Black Panthers. The fact of the matter is that insurance companies won't always behave in a manner acceptable or deemed just by Aristotle fans.
Insurance companies would be forced to defend the property of their clients. So yes, if a few blacks try to hassle the members of the white community, they'll be be removed with force. Would it escalate? No, things escalate with the state as a result of a build of ethnic tension that wouldn't exist without the state. So this glorious black revolution of yours? Won't happen.
Somehow you've turned this into an irrelevant discussion concerning who would win in a fight Black Panthers + Crips vs. Blackwater + Klu Klux Klan + Neo Nazis.
By the way your remarks about an ethnically tense environment miss the point. Without the state there are no ethnic tensions, if you don't like somebody you don't associate with them. Without the state telling white people that they need to accept negroes into their bars, universities and homes there is no resentment, so your answer misses the mark.
As for what I said, I said that a revolution can't be looked upon as successful if it doesn't get rid of the state, not by libertarians at least. And perhaps statist revolutions bring people on to the street. Although, not even then. Libertarian ones? Not likely. The libertarian revolution will be the state collapsing as a result of competition. So next time you want to play the victim and claim I've been putting words in your mouth, don't bother. You do it too.
Marko:There is nothing silly about it. It is only silly to a cosmopolitan, atomised induvidual, culturaly marxist such as yourself, without a basic grasp of mechanics of ethnic solidarity.
Yes, I'm a cosmopolitan, atomised individual and a cultural Marxist? Before this post I was guessing you were black, now that I know you can't read...
GilesStratton: You've been going off topic and it's got the point where this whole thing is ridiculous. You claim that clans and militias will get involved to help a single negro? Insurance companies would defend the property of their clients. You've dragged this whole thing off topic to the point where you're speculating about the Black Panthers. The fact of the matter is that insurance companies won't always behave in a manner acceptable or deemed just by Aristotle fans. Insurance companies would be forced to defend the property of their clients. So yes, if a few blacks try to hassle the members of the white community, they'll be be removed with force. Would it escalate? No, things escalate with the state as a result of a build of ethnic tension that wouldn't exist without the state. So this glorious black revolution of yours? Won't happen.
Your right that the neo-nazi/KKK/crips/panthers thing is irrelevant. In fact, it's a simple issue. They may not be perfect Aristotleians but, logically PDAs will have to respect property rights/indiv. rights.
Here's a logical Proof:
1. Humans Act Reason: Axiom
2. Humans act to purchase cheaper products Reason: If humans act, they will buy cheaper products
3. Engaging in warfare against blacks or homosexuals or anyone else will increase prices Reason: Duh.
4. Therefore: As a result people will choose the cheaper companies that only protect rights.
Do you deny that Humans Act? Didn't think so. Do you deny that deny that people purchase cheaper products over expensive ones? To do so would be to deny one of the logical basises for AE and since your on an AE website that would be a performative contradiction. Do you deny that this warfare would increse prices? I can't see how an entrepreneur can provide more services without raising rates. Especially considering the costs of fighting other PDAs or Panthers AND those who defend themselves. It would be impossible. It doesn't matter if they are Aristotleian libertarians or not, the market saves the day. This is one of the great advantages of AnCap (i know you don't like the name, but I'll stick with it.
None of the above is any Nirvana fallacy about everyone becoming Rothbardians, it's rationalist economics. Like I said Hoppe has made this argument many times as has Block and every advocate of Rothbardian AnCapism who has adressed the subect.
I usually agree with you or LS over Marko, but your statement is like saying that unions are technically possible in a free society. Yes but they would epically fail almost immediately.
I don't understand what you have found disagreeable. I've made two claims, the first being that those that provide defense will not do so out of any respect for rights but desire for money. The second, which is a corollary of the first, is that they won't always respect rights or provide justice as advocated by Aristotle or Henry Veatch.
In fact, my original position was merely that philosophy will not determine the policy of insurers, rather economics will. Somehow, from there this whole thing has devolved into "who would win in a fight, Black Panthers or the Kl Klux Klan?". In fact, I agree with you, and Hoppe, and most libertarians that insurers will progressively adopt and refine their policies and as a result there will be tendency towards insurers' becoming more libertarian. My only claim was that this has nothing to do with philosophy and everything to do with economics. Although, I did also point out that insurers will have different understandings or coercion or provocation, but once again this can, and usually will be solved without coercion.
I don't understand what I've said that's so disagreeable, other than pointing out the obvious. It seems to me individuals (not yourself) have been trying their hardest to find something that I've said to disagree with. For example, the black homosexual in the white community, which was blown up into all kinds of silly speculation.
It seems that you and I don't disagree on this.
I have no idea what this discussion is about anymore.
I doubt anyone else does.
The fallacies of intellectual communism, a compilation - On the nature of power
Stranger: I have no idea what this discussion is about anymore. I doubt anyone else does.
Me either really, my original point was that insurance companies won't care about Aristotle, it's somehow got to the Klu Klux Klan, not sure how.
But to get back on topic: Professor Hoppe is correct 100% of the time.
Nerditarian:1. Humans Act -- Reason: Axiom
2. Humans act to purchase cheaper products -- Reason: If humans act, they will buy cheaper products
3. Engaging in warfare against blacks or homosexuals or anyone else will increase prices
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."
Juan: Nerditarian:1. Humans Act -- Reason: Axiom yeah... 2. Humans act to purchase cheaper products -- Reason: If humans act, they will buy cheaper products Too bad that doesn't follow. From "humans act" it doesn't follow they buy 'cheaper' products.... ...It's possible that some people may enjoy lynching other people and will pay for it. Moreover, if there's demand for a lynching market (so to speak), then entrepreneurs will provide a cheap lynching service. Maybe you like to lynch blacks whereas other people prefer to lynch asians. Or maybe WASPs too. Who knows ? 3. Engaging in warfare against blacks or homosexuals or anyone else will increase prices So what ? Porsches are expensive. Yet people buy them. 4. Therefore: As a result people will choose the cheaper companies that only protect rights. I think that is getting things backwards. IF people believe that individual rights are valuable, then individual rights will be protected (by PDAs and other means). If on the other hand people think that individuals of group X don't really have 'human' rights then an amoral provider of "justice" will provide...criminal services.
This is, more or less, all I've been trying to say.
GilesStratton:But to get back on topic: Professor Hoppe is correct 100% of the time.
I have to disagree with his choice of sunglasses rather often.
Juan:. Too bad that doesn't follow. From "humans act" it doesn't follow they buy 'cheaper' products....
In this situation, it does. Sure it's not as true as what I could have said. I should have added if the service is of roughly equal value.Of course, this assumes that to Christians, for example, the costs of stamping out prostitution around them is worth paying much, much, much more for simple protection insurance. Or that this is valuable to enough Christians for it to be profitable for an insurance company to do this. Not happening. To be more accurate, demand curves slope downward.
Juan:Maybe you like to lynch blacks whereas other people prefer to lynch asians. Or maybe WASPs too. Who knows ?
I refer you here. Once you except that AnCap will eliminate or at least properly respond to this agression, seeing it properly respond to this is not so hard.
Juan:3. So what ? Porsches are expensive. Yet people buy them.
First we assume they can outnumber or outfight the blacks or homosexuals. Then we assume that they will pay higher prices. There are many racists who may not speak out against black lynchings, but are they willing to pay for them? Doubtable. Do you know how much wars costs? How much cops spend on vice control? Now imagine how much they'd spend on vice control if the vicers had defense of their own of roughly equal caliber. It's not a porsche we're talking about. Over the course of a few years, this would be many porshsches. It's prohibitively expensive, at least for the masses. Unless someone like Bill Gates decided to attack all the prostitutes and johns in America with his private army. But that would lose him computer customers. And he would be spending his own money, not others. So it's a diferent case entirely.
Juan: IF people believe that individual rights are valuable, then individual rights will be protected (by PDAs and other means). If on the other hand people think that individuals of group X don't really have 'human' rights then an amoral provider of "justice" will provide...criminal services.
I think either before or as a result of accepting PDAs a large number of people will be libertarians. I would say a large majority. Again, baseline service will be cheaper. The incentive is to choose it.And I hope your not ascribing amorality to me--I'm a natural rightser, thank you very much, with a strong belief in the ethics of argument.
GilesStratton: But to get back on topic: Professor Hoppe is correct 100% of the time.
Agreed. He's atleast got 90%. And with a curve for all the wrong people in the world allowed, that's like 110%.
GilesStratton:This is, more or less, all I've been trying to say.
GilesStratton:In fact, I agree with you, and Hoppe, and most libertarians that insurers will progressively adopt and refine their policies and as a result there will be tendency towards insurers' becoming more libertarian
I guess it's only speed we disagree about then. I think this would happen quite quickly. This is just like the debate people had over unions a week or two ago. Unions quickly die in AnCap land. There's no point in even arguing about rather or not they'd technically be "allowed" to exist. Aggressors will be "allowed" to exist, but they will fail epically and quickly through competition and consumer choice.
GilesStratton: Although, I did also point out that insurers will have different understandings or coercion or provocation, but once again this can, and usually will be solved without coercion.
That I must concede chief. While it will logically be basically libertarianism I wonder where PDAs will fall on issues of disagreement among us. Of course, immigration will be solved by the end of the State: AnCaps only disagree about present actions assuming a state. I mean, issues like abortion, for example. What then?
Won't peaceful companies save up money from these profits and be better prepared to defend themselves in your view?
Also, for the poor and middle class cost would prohibit it. So assuming there's enough religous rich people to pay for stamping out prostitution, private courts to agree with them and a they have a superior paramilitary force they could win. But would any entrepreneur choose this path, when being jailed by other PDAs' is a risk? The tooth fairy is more likely to exist.
Nerditarian:Of course, this assumes that to Christians, for example, the costs of stamping out prostitution around them is worth paying much, much, much more for simple protection insurance.
First we assume they can outnumber or outfight the blacks or homosexuals. Then we assume that they will pay higher prices.
Do you know how much wars costs? How much cops spend on vice control?
And I hope your not ascribing amorality to me.
Juan: Oh but that's the public sector at work. We know full well that the private sector is way more efficient. So it can be more efficient at violating rights, too.
True but it will also be more effective at protecting them. Therefore it's not illogical to assume that the cost of violation will remain remarkably high as compared to the now much lower cost of protection. As a percentage it would still be out of the price range of MOST people. Only very few people would be able to afford this for an extended period of time. Remember there's no inflation. In order to finance the First World War the US had to massively raise taxes. And inflate. And provide for the jailing of dissidents. Similar financial means just wouldn't be available to the poor and middle classes. Those that had enough money would be forced to choose between spending money on this or on consumer goods/investment. I think we know where the average American and average person would spend this money. Food. Car. Wal-Mart. After costs, it wouldn't be too profitable for the PDAs to search out these kind of folks, would it? Be it a war against chinese people or gay people it's going to cost, and the costs have to be paid up front. In addition, when the state wages wars on its on citizens (anti-drug, anti-prostitute, etc.) they generally aren't allowed to fight back. They would be able to here.That's not in the average Puritanical Pete's, christian or muslim or zoroastrian I don't know or care, price range.
I can't say what percentage of society would be able to afford this, but not a lot. And now from what I absorb people on the top of the social ladder, in modern semi-market societies who got there by market means quite frankly are less likely to give a damn about social things like that. Whose more opposed to fornication and pornography, as an example? Hugh Hefner or low-income baptists? How do you think Hugh Hefner's golf buddies feel about it? To ask these questions is to answer them. And further more, would more wealthy people invest in prostitution or try and raise an army to stop it? There would be far more of the previous. Therfore, such an attempt would be an epic fail, as the kids say. Would any paramilitary force volunteer for that suicide mission?
For the majority of GS' demography, these kind of things are simply beyond their paygrade. Someone Bill Gates rich would still be fighting the other people who think it's none of his business. They might boycott his computer company. Even if Bill Gates decided he doesn't like pornography or blacks or prostitutionhe can afford his own island to escape the masses and their choices. Or it might be cheaper for him to even to give people 1/4 off their software if they agree not to engage in these activities as forbearance. That would be legal, but again extremely expensive. The fact that I think that'd be cheaper, goes to show how much I'm estimating his potential costs to be... here.
Do you think that this would be affordably priced so that the nonmillionaire footwashers could afford the luxury of pushing people around?
Sphairon: GilesStratton:But to get back on topic: Professor Hoppe is correct 100% of the time. I have to disagree with his choice of sunglasses rather often.
Can you really imagine him wearing, aviators, for example?
This is just an instinct sort of thing, but social justice will sort itself out when people have the means to secure their opportunities in the market.
Right now, race relations, religious incompatibility, sexism etc are tied to the fact that the state provides a political club for each group to grasp after and attempt to use against their opposites.
Remove the state, and these groups (all of them) simply have to strive and survive based on their own merits. And while I am under no illusion that they will all have equal success, I don't see why they can't have equal opportunities for success.
The state subsidizes a lot of funny stuff, when Byzantine or Giles mention it, they do get cheeky and try to frame it in the least politically correct fashion, but really their argument is for competition of ideas and social structures, acknowledging that not all structures have the same goals, or will measure up equally under a single standard.