I'm having a discussion about minarchism vs. anarchy. The supporter of minarchism is a well known LP member... Someone made a point about corporations taking over, which led him to say:
":Wow this actually is what feeds back into my discussion earlier about justice. I think that if you have a small government that stays within the bounds of the constitution and has checks and balances, then you're better off. A corporation could buy all the land around you in effect trapping you and then who would protect your natural rights? No, I am still a firmly in the minarchist camp. There is no utopia, only baby steps towards freedom with a berlin wall here and there."
I view this scenario as unlikely, and fail to see how any government would help even were it to occur. I wrote more, but I wanted to get some input from you guys to follow up with... Any suggestions?
Maybe its just me but I think company's would be much too busy to start building circles around people. They have much more important things to do, such as satisfying consumer demand...
I wasn't aware that government can protect natural rights.
Oh wait, because it can't protect your rights, without violating your rights!
The Constitution is just a piece of paper. It has no authority. No one living signed it. No one follows it. And no one can get out of it.
Minarchists are the utopians. They believe honest, legitimate government is possible. Who is dreaming now?
liberty student:Minarchists are the utopians. They believe honest, legitimate government is possible. Who is dreaming now?
Too true.
'Men do not change, they unmask themselves' - Germaine de Stael
Andrew M. Sica: I'm having a discussion about minarchism vs. anarchy. The supporter of minarchism is a well known LP member... Someone made a point about corporations taking over, which led him to say: ":Wow this actually is what feeds back into my discussion earlier about justice. I think that if you have a small government that stays within the bounds of the constitution and has checks and balances, then you're better off. A corporation could buy all the land around you in effect trapping you and then who would protect your natural rights? No, I am still a firmly in the minarchist camp. There is no utopia, only baby steps towards freedom with a berlin wall here and there." I view this scenario as unlikely, and fail to see how any government would help even were it to occur. I wrote more, but I wanted to get some input from you guys to follow up with... Any suggestions?
If they started buying land in that kind of quantity, the price would skyrocket and they would go bankrupt in the process.
Periodically the tree of liberty must be watered with the blood of tyrants and patriots.
Thomas Jefferson
What would prevent the company from lobbying the government the ways it's been going on the US?
Enforced monopoly is the major threat to an individual liberty.
If I hear not allowed much oftener; said Sam, I'm going to get angry.
J.R.R.Tolkien, The Lord of the Rings
Somehow people don't realize that the state is a corporation.
The fallacies of intellectual communism, a compilation - On the nature of power
Andrew M. Sica:A corporation could buy all the land around you in effect trapping you and then who would protect your natural rights?
Quite possibly the second most-tired minarchist argument (the first being: "But who will build the roads?")...
1. Government has already done exactly this! It owns all the land, everywhere. And you're trapped.
2. Corporations have already co-opted a very large government. Presuming that they couldn't co-opt a much smaller one is silly.
3. There is such a thing (and dates back centuries in real property law) known as an "easement". under the circumstances set forth above, the land-locked individual would be entitled to an easement for use, established by an open and notorious use of the land prior to the sale. The argument presumes there are no free-market protection/dispute resolution agencies in existence.
4. If there are no PDAs in existence, that means there is nobody to protect the "corporation" from your trespasses.
============================
David Z
"The issue is always the same, the government or the market. There is no third solution."
david_z: The argument presumes there are no free-market protection/dispute resolution agencies in existence.
The argument presumes there are no free-market protection/dispute resolution agencies in existence.
I'm already aware of the above but what I don't understand is what something like this (quoted) would look like, how it would work, and how these "resolution agencies" would enforce their decisions should someone else disagree.
I havent read all of these but I mad a note of their titles so I could read them later. perhaps they will help?
on mises.orgCustomary Law with Private Means of Resolving Disputes and DispensingJustice: A Description of a Modern System of Law and Order without State Coercion
by Bruce L. BensonEnforcement of Private Property Rights in Primitive Societies: Law without Governmentby Bruce L. BensonLegislation and the Discovery of Law in a Free SocietyN. Stephan Kinsella Reciprocal Exchange as the Basis for Recognition of Law: Examples from American Historyby Bruce L. Benson* Anarchism and the Public Goods Issue: Law, Courts, and the Policeby David OsterfeldCustomary Law With Private Means of Resolving Disputes and Dispensing Justice: A Description Of a Modern System of Law and Order Without State CoercionBruce L. BensonTHE ROLE OF PERSONAL JUSTICE IN ANARCHO-CAPITALISMKARL T. FIELDINGJustice EntrepreneurshipIn a Free Market*by George H. SmithForum for Philosophical Studies, Los AngelesORDER WITHOUT LAW:WHERE WILL ANARCHISTS KEEP THE MADMEN?JOHN D. SNEEDEuropean Unification as the New Frontier of Collectivism: The Case for Competitive Federalism and Polycentric LawCarlo LottieriCHAOS THEORYTwo Essays OnMarket AnarchybyRobert P. MurphyMARKET CHOSEN LAWEdward Stringham*he put together abook but cant find the whole thing online http://www.mises.org/store/Anarchy-and-the-Law-P335.aspxBenson's website with more articleshttp://mailer.fsu.edu/~bbenson/
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
Before Stefan Molyneux went off the psycho-babble deep end (News flash: just because your wife is a psychiatrist does not qualify you to evaluate everyone else's "daddy" issues.) he had some good stuff on this topic, in particular an early podcast called "caging the beasts" or something to that effect. Although this deals more with actual crime than with the sort of thing we're discussing here.
Another angle you can play, is that look: Government already does this, or enables corporations to do this, and then provides them with all sorts of blanket protections/immunities etc. The fact that in a free market, some corporation might do something like this can not be considered sufficient justification for dismissing a free market, since this self-same evil already exists under statist conditions.
Before Stefan Molyneux went off the psycho-babble deep end (News flash: just because your wife is a psychiatrist does not qualify you to evaluate everyone else's "daddy" issues.)
This was when I stopped listening to him as well. He should have just stuck to libertarianism instead of trying to become the next Aristotle.