I've read about the Austrian economical principles and austro-libertarianism, however I think most libertarians running around teh internets are very naive. Idealistic just like communists, but just from the other end of the political sphere. Free market is usually the most efficient way to allocate resources, so many draw the conclusion that anarcho capitalism (or minarchism) is the most just society. I disagree. I don't want to draw my morality, understanding of justice, from any economic theory while I do admit that austrians have made contributions to economics.
Why did Mises prefer limited government over anarcho capitalism? Because he saw the collective benefit of the society more important than the individual freedom. In other words, he balanced individiual and society's benefit and did a rational decision just like an adult human being. He didn't think the government police was a perfectly efficient way to organize protection from coercion, he was full aware of the fact, but that didn't stop him from making a rational decision.
Justice or just society cannot be merely calculated by economic principles. We have all own our opinions about abortion, punishment, fraud, animal rights, intellectual property, weapon/explosive rights (WMD's), children rights etc. I don't need an ideology to state what my moral values are on those, while I think any stance won't be ideal and always open to cultural change. This goes for other social issues too. Democracy is one method to decide the rules of justice and I know its hundreds of drawbacks, but in real life, not everything is perfect, not even Mises Institute.
Many ideological purists try to form simple principles like NAP and then call everyone else disagreeing with them socialists, fasicsts, statists, whatever. Socialism by dictionary definition usd to mean government owning the means of production, currently practically extinct except North Korea and Cuba. Now I wouldn't find fascism totally inappropiate to describe what USA has been doing in the Middle East but the people that use it for every bit of state intervention, really need an honest reality check.
When people die because they simply cannot afford eg. health care, freedom is meaningless. You can blame their family, charitable organizations but its not going to fix the problem. To me, such is social darwinism. In all honesty, if you got beat up and went to a ER or police, and they wouldn't accept you as a "customer", would you think that such a society is great? Or you would call 911 only to realize you don't have enough money on your credit card? Or possible you get a terminal illness and you cannot work but cost of your treatment is in 6 digit category, then you die, tough luck? Or maybe you made a mistake in your fire fighting insurance and you die when the house burns down. Justice has been served?
Think about it for a second. Why isn't everyone (including Mises and Hayek) here an anarcho capitalist? Because some people are skeptical about its workability? But why would they be, freedom from taxation is unnegotiable! Why is social darwinism any better than mere survival of the fittest? If people die from lack of health care because they had no money to pay it, its not any better than they die from lack of protection because they had less money than the offender for their defense. Atleast not in my valuebook. If you simply don't care what happens to people in your society, but value liberty above all else, you should really check your moral values.
Now I'm not saying welfare measures are necessary for a working a society. I think a country could be run as a limited government with no welfare measures whatsoever but people shouldn't be so quick to condemn the arguments of welfare measures by just stating "taxation is theft", unfortunately reality is a bit more complex than that. Those people remind of those who just preach all day about their stance on abortion and how their stance is superior never listening what the other one has to say.
I want to encourage discussion and want libertarians also to understand the opposite view . Most people who live here actually like the welfare measures, and of course it has its issues just like any state measure would have. So thanks I'm fully aware of the calculation argument.
In Europe, Iceland is almost bankrupt. Just go there and talk about laissez-faire, and see the reaction. And yes I've read the article here about it. It doesn't convince me. Maybe the analysis is correct, but given that the country had the most free financial policy in Europe and ended up almost bankrupt while other scandinavian states with tighter financial regulations took only mild hit, the solution that if it only wasn't the moral hazard and regulation couldn't prevent this (eg. excessive maturity mismatching and over-cheap credit from foreigners) from happening doesn't convince me and frankly, not the Icelanders either, and I don't blame them. Albert Einstein once said: “The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results."
Why am I saying this? Well because I used to be like some folks here, preaching about libertarianism, and I want others to think these things through before rushing to ideology. In my personal opinion, ideologies are dangerous, whether its anaracho capitalism, communism, anarchism, fascism etc.
To quote Deng Xiaoping: "One should not talk of methodology every day. In real life, not everything is methodology."
*sigh* Is it that time of year again? Time for more of the garbage that we're "naive", "idealists", "assholes", "selfish" or what have you? I read your post. It doesn't convince me. If we're gonna talk about "dangerous" things it's this mentality that is truly dangerous. So go preach to someone who cares.
Freedom of markets is positively correlated with the degree of evolution in any society...
I think we have to look at how our moral values have been skewed over time by compounding changes in society. On either side of the room we could perhaps realize first how each other might have ended up so far apart, why we choose separating into groups..Economy is a measured value of society perhaps a necessity of quantifying values of individuals. Between individuals there are interactions of varying degrees and how on a psychological level feelings, emotions helps us over time in assessing morals and value of each person.A Best friend would be invaluable to another individual as a best friend or being valueless to another person. Billions of these interactions at a broad view might be considered a psychological valuation system.All of this really relates to time and distance. Everything from Atoms, to the universe scale up and have similar patters. Our brains i believe operate in patters of perception during interactions to create familiarity. I have some general familiarity in different forms of thought be it psychology, sociology, economy so even though i can't give specifics i have a general perception of a subject matter. systems thought, better know each other to better know the world?
If you don't care, why do you reply?
I never said you were asshole or selfish, I'm just fearing that many people are thowing into this too recklessly just like many people threw into real estate business. People make mistakes, and every idea that is produced by humans will have problems.
Just go to talk to ordinary people about privatizing the police, you argue that its efficient and less corrupt, which might be true but many will remain unconvinced. Is it because they are irrational? Not necessarily, its just because they have weighted the pros and cons with the given information and don't want to take the risk. I think such an opinion is justified, even if the existence of police is violation of NAP.
jiriki: If you don't care, why do you reply? I never said you were asshole or selfish, I'm just fearing that many people are thowing into this too recklessly just like many people threw into real estate business. People make mistakes, and every idea that is produced by humans will have problems. Just go to talk to ordinary people about privatizing the police, you argue that its efficient and less corrupt, which might be true but many will remain unconvinced. Is it because they are irrational? Not necessarily, its just because they have weighted the pros and cons with the given information and don't want to take the risk. I think such an opinion is justified, even if the existence of police is violation of NAP.
that they are scared of attempting to live justly doesnt justify their advocation of tyranny and slavery.
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
jiriki: Just go to talk to ordinary people about privatizing the police, you argue that its efficient and less corrupt, which might be true but many will remain unconvinced. Is it because they are irrational? Not necessarily, its just because they have weighted the pros and cons with the given information and don't want to take the risk. I think such an opinion is justified, even if the existence of police is violation of NAP.
People's opinions about the world did not fall from the sky. They are the result of an educational process, and this process is in many cases heavily biased in favor of the state. That which people learn in public schools, the military, from many religious groups or from the mainstream media supports the view that you need this alleged above-it-all entity, even if it's inherently evil. I don't think this proves anything.I advocate an emergent market order and do not believe it will be flawless. I argue that markets have way more correctional mechanisms than states and are thus preferable, aside from the many performance benefits they offer.And when it comes to things like "market fundamentalism", It is precisely the open-endedness of market anarchism that discerns it from ideologies like communism. Democracy is trying to achieve a similar scenario, but suffers from a number of shortcomings (see H.-H. Hoppe on this one).
Well because I used to be like some folks here, preaching about libertarianism, and I want others to think these things through before rushing to ideology. In my personal opinion, ideologies are dangerous,
Just go to talk to ordinary people about privatizing the police, you argue that its efficient and less corrupt, which might be true but many will remain unconvinced. Is it because they are irrational? Not necessarily, its just because they have weighted the pros and cons with the given information and don't want to take the risk.
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."
Saying that force is always immorral is an opinion too. You may see force always as immorral but to be honest, I don't think it constitutes a justice.
Suppose ten families live on an island peacefully, each self-sufficient. Then its found out that one family tends to beat up kids regularly, or you can come up with some cruel abuse if you wish, and the question remains whether the others would be allowed to intervene? Some say that's the right way to grow up kids, others that its totally imoral child abuse? Which one is right? If the last one, are they allowed to intervene? Doesn't the family own the kids?
I simply think justice cannot be easily deducted from simple principles.
jiriki:Why did Mises prefer limited government over anarcho capitalism? Because he saw the collective benefit of the society more important than the individual freedom. In other words, he balanced individiual and society's benefit and did a rational decision just like an adult human being. He didn't think the government police was a perfectly efficient way to organize protection from coercion, he was full aware of the fact, but that didn't stop him from making a rational decision.
What is the legitimate basis for establishing your limited government?
jiriki:Justice or just society cannot be merely calculated by economic principles. We have all own our opinions about abortion, punishment, fraud, animal rights, intellectual property, weapon/explosive rights (WMD's), children rights etc. I don't need an ideology to state what my moral values are on those, while I think any stance won't be ideal and always open to cultural change. This goes for other social issues too. Democracy is one method to decide the rules of justice and I know its hundreds of drawbacks, but in real life, not everything is perfect, not even Mises Institute.
Why should we use democracy? Why should we resolve ourselves to such base pessimism?
jiriki:Many ideological purists try to form simple principles like NAP and then call everyone else disagreeing with them socialists, fasicsts, statists, whatever. Socialism by dictionary definition usd to mean government owning the means of production, currently practically extinct except North Korea and Cuba
Well no one would call someone who disagrees with a social principle...a socialist. Perhaps you are confused and think that you can use previous examples from different places.
jiriki:When people die because they simply cannot afford eg. health care, freedom is meaningless.
And if people are coerced into giving all their funds for strangers, what is freedom then?
jiriki:Why isn't everyone (including Mises and Hayek) here an anarcho capitalist? Because some people are skeptical about its workability?
...And?
jiriki:Now I'm not saying welfare measures are necessary for a working a society
What is this whole rant of health care then?
jiriki:I think a country could be run as a limited government with no welfare measures whatsoever but people shouldn't be so quick to condemn the arguments of welfare measures by just stating "taxation is theft", unfortunately reality is a bit more complex than that.
Again what is this whole rant about not being free unless we have healthcare?
jiriki:In my personal opinion, ideologies are dangerous, whether its anaracho capitalism, communism, anarchism, fascism etc.
You preach minarchism...danger Will Robinson danger!
'Men do not change, they unmask themselves' - Germaine de Stael
Saying that force is always immorral is an opinion too.
Doesn't the family own the kids?
Why did Mises prefer limited government over anarcho capitalism? Because he saw the collective benefit of the society more important than the individual freedom.
In other words, he balanced individiual and society's benefit and did a rational decision just like an adult human being.
An ideology is not dangerous. Danger is a value placed on something by an individual who evaluates the ideology or by an individual evaluating others acting upon that ideology.
As for all ideologies, I am for only 1, that is: Individuals may act in their own volition and are free to do so as long as they do not violate the private property rights of someone else. There are two ways a person can act: 1. They act by their own volition, or 2. They act by the volition of someone else.
Government with a monopoly on force will use that power to make people act against their own volition each and every time. Furthermore government will always violate the private property rights of others each and every time. So the old addage is very true: A government that governs best governs least. So the optimal is one that does not govern at all.
jiriki: Justice or just society cannot be merely calculated by economic principles. We have all own our opinions about abortion, punishment, fraud, animal rights, intellectual property, weapon/explosive rights (WMD's), children rights etc. I don't need an ideology to state what my moral values are on those, while I think any stance won't be ideal and always open to cultural change. This goes for other social issues too. Democracy is one method to decide the rules of justice and I know its hundreds of drawbacks, but in real life, not everything is perfect, not even Mises Institute.
Err.. you are constructing a strawman. Most advocates of limited government do not advocate organization based on purely economic grounds. If this were so, all limited-government folk would be utilitarians, which many aren't.
jiriki:When people die because they simply cannot afford eg. health care, freedom is meaningless. You can blame their family, charitable organizations but its not going to fix the problem. To me, such is social darwinism. In all honesty, if you got beat up and went to a ER or police, and they wouldn't accept you as a "customer", would you think that such a society is great? Or you would call 911 only to realize you don't have enough money on your credit card? Or possible you get a terminal illness and you cannot work but cost of your treatment is in 6 digit category, then you die, tough luck? Or maybe you made a mistake in your fire fighting insurance and you die when the house burns down. Justice has been served? Think about it for a second. Why isn't everyone (including Mises and Hayek) here an anarcho capitalist? Because some people are skeptical about its workability? But why would they be, freedom from taxation is unnegotiable! Why is social darwinism any better than mere survival of the fittest? If people die from lack of health care because they had no money to pay it, its not any better than they die from lack of protection because they had less money than the offender for their defense. Atleast not in my valuebook. If you simply don't care what happens to people in your society, but value liberty above all else, you should really check your moral values.
Firstly, which countries are people dying of these in? The US, contrary to both left and right propaganda to the contrary, does not possess a free market in healthcare. I don't believe India has a free market in healthcare either. Secondly, lets look at the track record of socialized medicine in countries like Sweden. There, waiting lines are long, and getting longer, and indeed people have died for lack of care. Let's not even get started on what the hospitals are like in places like Cuba, North Korea or the Soviet Union. Thirdly, justice relates to interaction between intelligent creatures. Unless someone deliberately infects you or sets your [building] on fire, the question of justice is effectively irrelevant to a man caught in these predicaments. That doesn't mean it's a desirable condition, but it's not generally one that comes from another man oppressing you. This is the difference between dying from a criminal and dying from what is called an Act of God in some legal and insurance systems.
Following from that, by your reckoning, is a paraplegic with AIDS living in, say, Switzerland less free than a well-treated slave on an 18th century plantation? The slave may not be capable of stopping working for the master but he is certainly freer to move about, act and more free from disease, in all likelihood. Is the law of gravity the greatest impediment to human liberty? Can I sue nature for oppressing me whenever an earthquake damages my property?
Fourthly, I agree with you the terms "socialist" and "fascist" are thrown around too often, both in general and around here. I believe a better term for programs such as socialized medicine and the like (entitlement programs) would be "socialistic". They agree with the Marxist principle of "from each according to his ability (the taxpayers), to each according to his need (the recipients of these programs)". Whether this is a bad thing or not, of course, is up to debate, but it cannot be denied that entitlement programs and Marxism share this commonality, and I do not believe it unreasonable to draw comparisons between them.
jiriki: Most people who live here actually like the welfare measures, and of course it has its issues just like any state measure would have. So thanks I'm fully aware of the calculation argument.
Most people who live here actually like the welfare measures, and of course it has its issues just like any state measure would have. So thanks I'm fully aware of the calculation argument.
Appeal to majority. Your claim the majority of the citizens in your country (I'm assuming you are European) support welfare measures has little bearing on their validity or economic viability, even if it is true (which it probably is). To follow on from points made earlier by other posters on the subject of government indoctrination (which, in Europe, is probably a tautology when describing their government schools), even if, hypothetically, a completely impartial poll revealed the majority of the citizens of the Democratic People's Republic of Korea supported the policies of Kim Jong-il's government and Juche ideology, that would not mean that Juche ideology or Kim Jong-il's policies are valid, be it economically or ethically.
There are probably plenty of people in the United States, to draw an ideology, that believe the Federal Reserve system is an economically wise and sustainable policy, despite the fact the US Federal Reserve is the primary cause of the global financial recession (Iceland did not exist in an autarkic vacuum). Opinions do not equal facts.
You ask why Mises was not an anarchist, but you fail to consider the world in which he grew up: as a son of a recently ennobled family(IIRC, it was his grandfather who got the title) of the Austro-Hungarian Empire. Not only was he closer than most to the center of power, the German culture(I'm inferring the connection to Austrian culture) is pretty fanatical when it comes to things being in order. Einstein spent the latter years of his life trying to disprove the nondeterminative nature of quantum mechanics.
Praetyre:I agree with you the terms "socialist" and "fascist" are thrown around too often, both in general and around here.
That is because "there is no third solution". It's the market or the state (paraphrasing Mises)
liberty student: Praetyre:I agree with you the terms "socialist" and "fascist" are thrown around too often, both in general and around here. That is because "there is no third solution". It's the market or the state (paraphrasing Mises)
The existence of a government does not imply that government is socialist or fascist. Socialism is a system of government whereby the means of production are owned by the government. As jiriki pointed out, very few countries today are socialist. Cuba, North Korea, maybe the Democratic Republic of the Congo, that's about it. Similarily, fascism (be it regular, capital F italian Fascism or Naziism) is a dead ideology with virtually no adherents who run actual governments these days.
There are certainly similarities between, say, Obamite nationalization of industry and fascism, but that doesn't mean they are the same, any more than the fact both social democrats, communists, communitarians and Nazis all support government healthcare doesn't make them all the same ideology.
In reality, we have a choice of two things: Either communistic production is superior to free production, or it is not. If it is, then it must be for all things, not just for security. If not, progress requires that it be replaced by free production. Complete communism or complete liberty: that is the alternative!
I don't care about how "unrealistic" or whatever it is you deem libertarian ideology to be.
No, it's because they are misinformed and too afraid to try something they've not experienced, that is what. Their "weighting" of the procs and cons is skewed, am sorry to say...
jiriki:Why am I saying this? Well because I used to be like some folks here, preaching about libertarianism, and I want others to think these things through before rushing to ideology. In my personal opinion, ideologies are dangerous, whether its anaracho capitalism, communism, anarchism, fascism etc.
I think my sig is your answer.
At most, I think only 5% of the adult population would need to stop cooperating to have real change.
There is a simple, easy response to this... (Although this isn't it)
pseudo-realism and a "shurg your shoulders" attitude toward any attempts at systemic ethics is dangerous.
Anarcho-Capitalists DON'T draw their ethics from economic theory (Although some do propose a vital linkage between the two) they are NOT utilitarians for the most part. (Friedman and co. exempt). Most would (from my experience on this forum and elsewhere) claim Anarcho-Capitalism as ethically superior on the basis of "Natural Law".
You seem to have a rather intimate knowledge of what Mises did and exactly why he did it. Is it possible that he just made a mistake, an error?
Once again, ethics IS NOT deduced from economic principles to my knowledge. While they can be linked, one doesn't require the other to funciton.
While there is a bad habit of name calling that emerges from time to time on this forum (no names will be stated to keep the peace and to provide simplicity in the discussion) You're not addressing overall points.
In fact the Police ARE NOT obliged to protect and serve you, they have every right to NOT assist you. Also, government services don't come out of thin air, they are already paid for, and also you seem to simplify the anarcho-capitalist positions on "public services" insofar as payment is concerned.
Taxation IS theft. We can argue this, and it will be proven. Reality is more complicated than ANY ethical proposition, but that is irrelevant. While it certainly isn't wise to resort to such quick fixes in a discussion and or arguement, it is certainly not invalid. Libertarians DO listen (A majority in a majority of situations anyway) to the other side of the debate, sometimes the discussion is productive, other times, not so much (Absence of shared understanding of what defintions of particular concepts are is a problem that isn't always overcome)
When you say "Ideologies are dangerous" you are correct, there is an interit RISK to actually having a particular worldview. THis doesn't imply that one ought not have a worldview. The formation of a worldview is an important step in an individual's life, and an ongoing process. We ALL have an ideology, although one with a very long name. (Ex. Anarcho-Feminist Capitalist Utilitarian w/ Mutualist sympathies, Left Libertarian, Austrian on matters of economic theory) The important component is to be open to new information, this doesn't require an abandonment of ideology, but the UNDERSTANDING of it.
I don't use legitimacy for my ethics. I hope you don't either.
I never said it was unrealistic, I just don't find it an ethical solution. I'm not saying any alternative is ethically superior either.
This is the difference between dying from a criminal and dying from what is called an Act of God in some legal and insurance systems.
Maybe there is but what is criminality but unethical behaviour? Now I hope you are not saying that what insurance companies do as long as they follow the freedom of contract is totally ethical. Even fraud is relative.
What do you do with freedom if your daddy assaults you but the others are not allowed to intervene? For me freedom is not inexcusable.
No, it's because they are misinformed and too afraid to try something they've not experienced, that is what. Their "weighting" of the procs and cons is skewed, am sorry to say.
You still haven't solved the issue of the Island I spoke of because "rights" are fundamentally subjective. In anarcho capitalist society, others would have to trespass one's liberty in order to resolve the issue of abortion or children's rights. If everyone else on the island would condemn violent assault on the last familes kids, some anarcho capitalists would call it it "tyranny" to intervene, but I don't because my ethics is not based on total liberty.
When you say "Ideologies are dangerous" you are correct, there is an interit RISK to actually having a particular worldview. THis doesn't imply that one ought not have a worldview.
Not at all, I'm just more pragmatic in the sense that in case of my Island, I would advocate democractic way to decide whether abortion or owning weapons of mass destructions should be allowed or not. Its not flawless, but I think its better than advocate liberty above everything.
jiriki:I don't use legitimacy for my ethics. I hope you don't either
I do in fact. Rights are legally [ legitimate ] enforcable claims an individual can make against another. When I say I have a right to this pen what I really mean to say is that you have no right to take it from me. If you do, I can legally coerce you to take it back.
jiriki:What do you do with freedom if your daddy assaults you but the others are not allowed to intervene? For me freedom is not inexcusable
If that was happening then my father is beating me and I can cry for help and an agent who takes up my claim can defend me if I cannot do so myself. You have a lot to learn about the ethical implacations of Anarcho-Capitalism.
And how about abortion in a similiar society? Animal Rights? Consent age for sex?
If you want to be part of a state, that's fine. But why should we be forced at gunpoint to join you?
Periodically the tree of liberty must be watered with the blood of tyrants and patriots.
Thomas Jefferson
What do you "use for your ethics"? When people discuss certain terms like morality, ethics, sovereignty, etc. there can be some confusion without proper definitions laid out.
Now I hope you are not saying that what insurance companies do as long as they follow the freedom of contract is totally ethical. Even fraud is relative.
What is an example of an unethical contractual agreement? What is an example of "relative fraud"?
Sure, there will always be some arbitrariness or subjectivity involved in meting out justice. What you are missing is that we are only concerned with the advantages of common (private) law over civil (state) law. So, I can only guess if the people of the island will draw guidelines for child abuse as being a "one time case of bruises lasting 5+ days" or "a certain pattern of leaving bruises on at least 5% of the body over X time" or whatever. Had the abusive parent agreed to a certain chain of arbitration, their decision is likely to not be found to be "tyranny".
The fact that you term the parent's actions 'violent assault' means that a crime has been committed for purposes of discussion. If you want to be more specific, we can take a guess at what punishment (if any) might be appropriate. We can only guess that guidelines for what is child abuse will usually come down around those we have today. That is, spanking is generally okay but breaking bones or locking a kid in a closet their entire life isn't. The case of parents and children are special in terms of ownership. Children are not mere property, even if they are very young. If you live under a "voluntary government" that allows breaking infants' arms, you run the risk of outside ancaps liberating children and punishing abusers.
And how about abortion in a similiar society? Animal Rights? Consent age for sex? owning weapons of mass destructions?
There are other threads on these so I won't address them all. I kind of feel like you aren't genuinely concerned with how these issues should or would be handled in a stateless society. You ought to try figuring out what thing libertarianism is primarily concerned with and attempt some critical thinking of your own. That way, you might be able to construct meaningful arguments instead of these fallacious and vacuous shots at our treatment of every hotbutton issue.
I just have a question for anyone opposed to abortion rights: If a mother is supposed to commit murder, to whom is restitution owed?
Democracy means the opportunity to be everyone's slave.—Karl Kraus.
jiriki: Saying that force is always immorral is an opinion too. You may see force always as immorral but to be honest, I don't think it constitutes a justice. Suppose ten families live on an island peacefully, each self-sufficient. Then its found out that one family tends to beat up kids regularly, or you can come up with some cruel abuse if you wish, and the question remains whether the others would be allowed to intervene? Some say that's the right way to grow up kids, others that its totally imoral child abuse? Which one is right? If the last one, are they allowed to intervene? Doesn't the family own the kids?
Initiatory force (like beating your children) is wrong. Defense of yourself and others is justified.
jiriki:Even fraud is relative.
You missed my whole point. My point is that you are trying to evade your high belief in one objective morality. I'm saying state is a tool to to implement ethics just like the other families on the island will use force to prevent child abuse or sex with minors. When they punish the child abuser, they can wave a flag of state if you wish.
Children are not mere property, even if they are very young. If you live under a "voluntary government" that allows breaking infants' arms, you run the risk of outside ancaps liberating children and punishing abusers.
So you accept force as a method for imposing ethics on the minority.
jiriki: I'm saying state is a tool to to implement ethics just like the other families on the island will use force to prevent child abuse or sex with minors.
A system of law and justice can be established without the state.
jiriki:When they punish the child abuser, they can wave a flag of state if you wish.
You have to explain this one. You are saying that when we are punishing criminals for the crimes they commit against individuals, we are somehow aggrandizing the state apparatus?
A system of law and justice can be established without the state
The 9 families just formed a system of justice an imposed their justice on the last one, you can call it state or private court, whatever, its semantics. Now atleast in most democracies most people accept their existence of the state as a system of justice. Its not any different.
jiriki: A system of law and justice can be established without the state The 9 families just formed a system of justice an imposed their justice on the last one, you can call it state or private court, whatever, its semantics. Now atleast in most democracies most people accept their existence of the state as a system of justice. Its not any different.
But its not semantics because a private court or a state court are funded differently. A state court is funded through the threat of imprisonment.
jiriki:The 9 families just formed a system of justice an imposed their justice on the last one, you can call it state or private court, whatever, its semantics.
If the 9 families imposed it upon the last family then it is a state. However, the point of anarchism is voluntary exchange and voluntary co-existence. The last family should not be obligated to listen to anything the other families have to say as long as the last family does not formulate violence against the other 9. One family can establish itself as abitrarors to the rest of the island. I would call that a private court system. However, to think that a state is in any manner similar to a private court is just plain moronic.
jiriki:Now atleast in most democracies most people accept their existence of the state as a system of justice. Its not any different.
Well I think they are waking up to the realization that the government isn't really a system of justice. I hate to be all dialectical and whigish but if you care to look at the progression of political power in history, it is rather obvious that it is becoming more and more decentralized.
The 9 families agreed that hey we need to bring this last guy to justice and okay, from now on we need a justice system and everyone on the island needs to pay taxes for it. You may disagree that they have the right to do this because its coercion but what you fundamentally disagree on is their ethics not the coercion, because if you disagree them imposing their ethics on the last family, you couldn't accept them bringing the last family to justice. Whether they condemn beating up kids, having abortion or not paying taxes for court system is the ethical question.
jiriki:The 9 families agreed that hey we need to bring this last guy to justice and okay, from now on we need a justice system and everyone on the island needs to pay taxes for it.
What gives them such a right to demand that of the last family?
jiriki:The 9 families agreed that hey we need to bring this last guy to justice and okay, from now on we need a justice system and everyone on the island needs to pay taxes for it. What gives them such a right to demand that of the last family?
What gives them right to define what is child abuse, animal abuse or consent age of sex and act on the last family depending on it?
Beating a child is an act of force, which is what you don't seem to get.
jiriki:You missed my whole point. My point is that you are trying to evade your high belief in one objective morality. I'm saying state is a tool to to implement ethics just like the other families on the island will use force to prevent child abuse or sex with minors. When they punish the child abuser, they can wave a flag of state if you wish. me:Children are not mere property, even if they are very young. If you live under a "voluntary government" that allows breaking infants' arms, you run the risk of outside ancaps liberating children and punishing abusers. So you accept force as a method for imposing ethics on the minority. Libertarianism makes no guarantee of a perfect society. Are you trying to paint murderers or child abusers as a downtrodden minority? OK great, the state is a "tool to implement ethics" [enforce laws]. That is in no way a case for a state being better able or necessary to enforce laws. Try again and please go back and answer questions in my previous post. There can be cases where a murderer believes he has done nothing wrong and, lacking previous agreements, refuses to agree to any arbitrator whatsoever. In this case, society, expressed through actions of private courts, may decide to punish the murderer regardless of his holdout. That there is a risk to "taking the law into your own hands" is an impetus for victims and criminals alike to agree to agree to arbitrators who have historically been deemed fair. The profit motive of private justice firms vs a state system, with its untrained jurors and inferior procedures, helps ensure that society will deem the private system more fair relatively. The 9 families agreed that hey we need to bring this last guy to justice and okay, from now on we need a justice system and everyone on the island needs to pay taxes for it. You may disagree that they have the right to do this because its coercion but what you fundamentally disagree on is their ethics not the coercion, because if you disagree them imposing their ethics on the last family, you couldn't accept them bringing the last family to justice. Whether they condemn beating up kids, having abortion or not paying taxes for court system is the ethical question. If everyone agreed to pay for upkeep of a justice system, it isn't taxes being paid but fees. I don't know how exactly they are "imposing their ethics on the last family" yet because you aren't specific about the case at hand. Until you clarify, I assume we are talking about something I would agree is "violent assault on a child", as you said. I see your point though, it isn't everyone that agreed to fees for a legal system, it is 9/10 inhabitants (or 99% of people who have no problem whatsoever with government handling justice). I don't agree with the existence of states but I am shit outta luck right? So, how is this any valid criticism of anarchy when the same applies to a society with a state? Again, you fail to realize that there are inherent disadvantages of states' legislation and monopoly on violence. Libertarianism has clear answers to your ethical (legal) dilemmas if its one principle is followed correctly: "beating up kids" and thievery (taxes) are wrong, then women have the right to "abort" (evict) a fetus. Democracy means the opportunity to be everyone's slave.—Karl Kraus. | Post Points: 20
me:Children are not mere property, even if they are very young. If you live under a "voluntary government" that allows breaking infants' arms, you run the risk of outside ancaps liberating children and punishing abusers.
Libertarianism makes no guarantee of a perfect society. Are you trying to paint murderers or child abusers as a downtrodden minority? OK great, the state is a "tool to implement ethics" [enforce laws]. That is in no way a case for a state being better able or necessary to enforce laws. Try again and please go back and answer questions in my previous post.
There can be cases where a murderer believes he has done nothing wrong and, lacking previous agreements, refuses to agree to any arbitrator whatsoever. In this case, society, expressed through actions of private courts, may decide to punish the murderer regardless of his holdout. That there is a risk to "taking the law into your own hands" is an impetus for victims and criminals alike to agree to agree to arbitrators who have historically been deemed fair. The profit motive of private justice firms vs a state system, with its untrained jurors and inferior procedures, helps ensure that society will deem the private system more fair relatively.
If everyone agreed to pay for upkeep of a justice system, it isn't taxes being paid but fees. I don't know how exactly they are "imposing their ethics on the last family" yet because you aren't specific about the case at hand. Until you clarify, I assume we are talking about something I would agree is "violent assault on a child", as you said.
I see your point though, it isn't everyone that agreed to fees for a legal system, it is 9/10 inhabitants (or 99% of people who have no problem whatsoever with government handling justice). I don't agree with the existence of states but I am shit outta luck right? So, how is this any valid criticism of anarchy when the same applies to a society with a state? Again, you fail to realize that there are inherent disadvantages of states' legislation and monopoly on violence.
Libertarianism has clear answers to your ethical (legal) dilemmas if its one principle is followed correctly: "beating up kids" and thievery (taxes) are wrong, then women have the right to "abort" (evict) a fetus.
Yeah I never said "states" were perfect, not more than any other human organizations. But I'm here to question the people who think its in princple, wrong to force ethics by coercion.
Libertarianism and Austrian economics prove states to be not only "not perfect" but also inferior in every way possible.
You still haven't defined "ethics" for the purpose of our discussion, or said where you derive your ethical principles from. If we are talking about ethics as laws, then it is necessary to use aggression/violence/coercion to enforce laws. The difference is that we are guided by the idea of doing so only in a defensive way.
jiriki: jiriki:The 9 families agreed that hey we need to bring this last guy to justice and okay, from now on we need a justice system and everyone on the island needs to pay taxes for it. What gives them such a right to demand that of the last family? What gives them right to define what is child abuse, animal abuse or consent age of sex and act on the last family depending on it?
What gives them the right to define? We are human that's what we do. We define. We have intellect.