Political Theory

Re: "The state arose from competing legal jurisdictions..."

Malachi — Fri, 12 Oct 2012 23:18:10 GMT

Force isnt a necessary precondition for arbitration. The only necessary preconditions for arbitration are two disputants, an arbitrator, and the agreement to arbitrate the dispute.

I believe it is a big reach, to think that it is feasible to expect any state to ever voluntarily give up power to corporations without being co-opted by corporations.

this is indeed hoobla joobla. Please please please explain to me how corporations are supposed to exist without being chartered by the state.

Re: "The state arose from competing legal jurisdictions..."

SkepticalMetal — Fri, 12 Oct 2012 23:15:10 GMT

That would be awesome. I think ~~all of the Little Sisters are hot.~~

Re: "The state arose from competing legal jurisdictions..."

TronCat — Fri, 12 Oct 2012 23:13:48 GMT

Seasteading? What if it ends up like Rapture!?

Re: "The state arose from competing legal jurisdictions..."

SkepticalMetal — Fri, 12 Oct 2012 23:04:06 GMT

I personally can't wait until Anenome's seasteading project gets up and running. That will be the ultimate test of our beliefs.

Re: "The state arose from competing legal jurisdictions..."

Kelvin Silva — Fri, 12 Oct 2012 23:02:35 GMT

Our cause takes a lot of fucking work.

Not futility.

Re: "The state arose from competing legal jurisdictions..."

TronCat — Fri, 12 Oct 2012 22:46:55 GMT

So you think our cause is futile?

Re: "The state arose from competing legal jurisdictions..."

No2statism — Fri, 12 Oct 2012 22:35:04 GMT

No monopoly is possible in this world regardless of the state.

In other words, state and corporations are both institutions created by men. They can be abolished, but they will always exist in some form. The Church of Rome acted like a statist, competed with true monarchies, then republics came, so statists will never go away. They may come from another planet and the UN sure as hell won't defeat them. In fact, the UN may have helped them come because the UN supports forced or involuntary union.

It's a shame Woodrow Wilson wasn't in his right mind at the end of his presidency. I think he could've fixed some of what he did, because Harding couldn't do it the right way and Coolidge just didn't feel like he could get things done so he gave up. Hoover came in like a Theodore Roosevelt National Socialist and he beat Al Smith, then FDR beat Al Smith so Al Smith wouldn't be able to set things straight. I wonder what would've happened if that so-called Business Plot had happened. It sounded like it could've helped the Old Right become successful which would've lead to a voluntaryist America of free and independent microstates, maximum individual liberty, and minimum violation of the NAP.

Re: "The state arose from competing legal jurisdictions..."

Kelvin Silva — Fri, 12 Oct 2012 20:53:44 GMT

Then he is just skipping the point.

If there are already states formed and they are competing, how is it any different from today? US competes with other countries for supremacy.

He hasnt answered how the STATE CAME TO BE.

He doesn't make any sense whatsoever, since moving to the US, vs UK is basically the same shit, where you get taxed, and shat upon by the government.

Arbitration does require some force to be carried out, but it is mutually agreeable by both parties.

WHere as a state, you do not agree to pay taxes or not, your wallet is just raped.

Then you get into shit like social contracts and whatnot.

Re: "The state arose from competing legal jurisdictions..."

TronCat — Fri, 12 Oct 2012 20:48:31 GMT

This just just hoobla joobla. Yea, we get it, you prefer the argument that has no historical credibility (in all cases I'm aware of, states do not arise from a competitive market for arbitration), and then you appeal to how "natural" it is for a legal agency to force its customers to buy its product. Cool.

His response:

" When i say competing legal jurisdictions i'm referring states in competition with eachother. If legal jurisdictions were privately owned they would still rely on force to enforce the law, thus making them exactly the same as states. So really the option to leave the US (private legal jurisdiction) and move to the UK (competing private legal jurisdiction) is, in essence, the same thing as choosing where to live in an anarchocapitalistic society, we are always in a state of international anarchy.

Also, that's the problem with arbitration, it requires the use of force for its rule to be carried out, so the only way for private legal jurisdictions to compete is either to have violent conflict with neighboring jurisdictions or to acquire the customers of a neighboring jurisdiction, which is simply war and immigration. I don't see how competing private legal jurisdictions are any different than States other than they're supposed to somehow magically follow a libertarian ethic for no reason."

Re: "The state arose from competing legal jurisdictions..."

NonAntiAnarchist — Fri, 12 Oct 2012 19:47:54 GMT

I prefer the argument that the state naturally arose from competing legal jurisdictions and that violent monopolies are the only naturally occurring monopolies.

This just just hoobla joobla. Yea, we get it, you prefer the argument that has no historical credibility (in all cases I'm aware of, states do not arise from a competitive market for arbitration), and then you appeal to how "natural" it is for a legal agency to force its customers to buy its product. Cool.

Re: "The state arose from competing legal jurisdictions..."

Kelvin Silva — Fri, 12 Oct 2012 19:30:24 GMT

The government is a violent monopoly.

"The state arose from competing legal jurisdictions..."

TronCat — Fri, 12 Oct 2012 19:20:35 GMT

"I believe it is a big reach, to think that it is feasible to expect any state to ever voluntarily give up power to corporations without being co-opted by corporations. I prefer the argument that the state naturally arose from competing legal jurisdictions and that violent monopolies are the only naturally occurring monopolies."

Thoughts?