The GOP's Libertarian Problem
Melissa Liberty
<t9dfdtgjlt26od60n...@4ax.com>:
>On Sat, 14 Apr 2001 01:54:27 GMT, Melissa...@NO-PRIVATE.org
>(Melissa Liberty) wrote:
>
>>"Owl" <a@a.a> wrote in <9b8598$mr4$2...@nntp9.atl.mindspring.net>:
>>
>>>"Melissa Liberty" <Melissa...@NO-PRIVATE.org> wrote in message
>>>news:eYvB6.792$el5....@wormhole.dimensional.com...
>>>> Perhaps all existing ones, but I believe it IS possible to have a govt
>>>that
>>>> doesn't.
>>>
>>>Is there any evidence for this belief? If 100% of observed A's have
>>>property B, is it rational to believe that the next A will not have B?
>>
>>Unscientific. Just because all previous ones have been statist doesn't
>>mean all future ones must be.
>>
>>Heck someone could buy an island somewhere that wasn't owned by any
>>country, and set up a libertarian state anytime they wanted, to try it
>>out.
>
>If it wasn't owned by a county who would issue the title when you buy
>it? Ever buy real estate?
Well there's ONE reason for minimal govt to exist then. :-) Can't have legal
private property ownership without SOME govt to protect it.
I suppose libertarians would have to convince some small country to try the
libertarian paradigm then, perhaps by promising them vast prosperity from it.
--
- Melissa in Colorado
Seeking full time job - west side of Denver.
http://www.dimensional.com/~melissa/resume.htm
http://dimensional.com/~melissa/melissa.htm
"A Bill Of Rights is what the people are entitled to against every
government on earth, general or particular, and what no just
government should refuse, or rest on inference." -Thomas Jefferson
http://www.UPAlliance.org/
Adrian
just don't have the trappings of government to go along with it. It
would be like saying to an anarchist who claims that order is possible
without government that your definition of order necessarily entails
government imposed order.
1) Private property doesn't derive from government
2) A minimal government probably will never happen
3) The evidence suggests that the more we minimize government the
better off we are
To respond to this by saying that without the possibility of a truly
perfectly minimal government we must scrap the whole idea of
libertarianism and it just isn't true that the proper government is a
minimal one, is like saying that the concept of infinity is bogus just
because you can never reach it or because it does nto appear on a
number line anywhere.
On Sat, 14 Apr 2001 16:14:32 GMT, Melissa...@NO-PRIVATE.org
John A. Stovall
(Melissa Liberty) wrote:
>John A. Stovall <john.a....@mindspring.com> wrote in
><t9dfdtgjlt26od60n...@4ax.com>:
>
>>On Sat, 14 Apr 2001 01:54:27 GMT, Melissa...@NO-PRIVATE.org
>>(Melissa Liberty) wrote:
>>
>>>"Owl" <a@a.a> wrote in <9b8598$mr4$2...@nntp9.atl.mindspring.net>:
>>>
>>>>"Melissa Liberty" <Melissa...@NO-PRIVATE.org> wrote in message
>>>>news:eYvB6.792$el5....@wormhole.dimensional.com...
>>>>> Perhaps all existing ones, but I believe it IS possible to have a govt
>>>>that
>>>>> doesn't.
>>>>
>>>>Is there any evidence for this belief? If 100% of observed A's have
>>>>property B, is it rational to believe that the next A will not have B?
>>>
>>>Unscientific. Just because all previous ones have been statist doesn't
>>>mean all future ones must be.
>>>
>>>Heck someone could buy an island somewhere that wasn't owned by any
>>>country, and set up a libertarian state anytime they wanted, to try it
>>>out.
>>
>>If it wasn't owned by a county who would issue the title when you buy
>>it? Ever buy real estate?
>
>Well there's ONE reason for minimal govt to exist then. :-) Can't have legal
>private property ownership without SOME govt to protect it.
No, you could get certificates of title with insurance issued by
private companies. Which is petty much the way title insurance works
today, only it would just cut the state out of keeping the records.
>
>I suppose libertarians would have to convince some small country to try the
>libertarian paradigm then, perhaps by promising them vast prosperity from it.
Sure and the first time they open up the Drug-Are-Us, "By the Ounce or
by the Ton" or Open Air Weapons Swap Meet, "Get hard currency for
those old nukes." or Repairman Jack's Justice Shop. The busy bodies
in Washington will do another Grenada or Panama.
******************************************************************
"To be governed is to be watched, inspected, spied upon, directed,
law-driven, numbered, regulated, enrolled, indoctrinated, preached
at, controlled, checked, estimated, valued, censured, commanded,
by creatures who have neither the right nor the wisdom or the
virtue to do so. To be governed is to be at every operation, at
every transaction, noted, registered, counted, taxed, stamped,
measured, numbered, assessed, licensed, authorized, admonished,
prevented, forbidden, reformed, corrected, punished."
"General Idea of the Revolution in the Nineteenth Century"
Pierre Proudhon
Paul T. Ireland
"John A. Stovall" <john.a....@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:q92hdtseu74j4lu9j...@4ax.com...
Who would enforce these certificates if someone stole your property. Who
would protect you from theft, assault, etc.? Minimal government has to
exist especially with a country this size. There's no getting around it.
Marcus S. Turner
Paul T. Ireland <ptir...@pacbell.net> wrote in message
news:V91C6.41$7P5....@news.pacbell.net...
Perhaps the better description would be a government with
minimal administrative functional and strong judicial
functional.
Marcus S. Turner
Marcus S. Turner <msha...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:tX1C6.5565$6R5.3...@news1.atl...
> Perhaps the better description would be a government with
> minimal administrative functional and strong judicial
> functional.
<sigh> Sorry...
Perhaps the better description would be a government with
minimal administrative functionality and strong judicial
functionality.
John A. Stovall
Note my use of the word insured, they would either pay you
compensation or use an enforcement agency to remove the thief. As for
protect from assault and robbery, who protects you now and don't say
the police? There are many court cases ruling the police don't have
to protect you. You can protect you self (as those of us fortunate
enough to live where the right to carry a concealed handgun has not
been violated by the state.) as well as hire private security forces
as part of insurance or local organization such a property owners
association which is being done now.
Yes, we can get around it. Any service which the government provide
can be provide by private competing sources.
For the source the police not protecting you see:
http://www.jpfo.org/Dial911.htm
*****************************************************
Let boys want pleasure, and men
Struggle for power, and women perhaps for fame,
And the servile to serve a Leader and the dupes
to be duped.
Yours is not theirs.
"Be Angry at the Sun"
Robinson Jeffers
Melissa Liberty
<3ad88a14...@news-server.nc.rr.com>:
>Nonsense. Of course you can have private property ownership -- you
>just don't have the trappings of government to go along with it.
How then would you protect your private property against anyone who decided
to come along with a bigger force than you had, and claim it?
>It
>would be like saying to an anarchist who claims that order is possible
>without government that your definition of order necessarily entails
>government imposed order.
Well, without any govt at all, it becomes strictly LOTJ; Law of the Jungle.
>1) Private property doesn't derive from government
No, but govt defends it, with filings of title and the force to enforce
ownership.
Without ANY govt, we'd revert to a Mad Max world with gangs of soldiers
working for feudal warlords going around and taking what they please from
anyone they wish, raping and killing along the way.
Maybe this is what anarchists are advocating though, because they see some
advantage in that, for them.
>2) A minimal government probably will never happen
>3) The evidence suggests that the more we minimize government the
>better off we are
True, to a point. I personally think the point should be to have what govt
the people will freely support ( voluntary contributions versus taxation )
within a framework of individual rights.
Melissa Liberty
And who defends your title with force, if necessary?
>>I suppose libertarians would have to convince some small country to try
>>the libertarian paradigm then, perhaps by promising them vast prosperity
>>from it.
>
>Sure and the first time they open up the Drug-Are-Us, "By the Ounce or
>by the Ton" or Open Air Weapons Swap Meet, "Get hard currency for
>those old nukes." or Repairman Jack's Justice Shop. The busy bodies
>in Washington will do another Grenada or Panama.
Pure speculation.
Melissa Liberty
...
>>> No, you could get certificates of title with insurance issued by
>>> private companies. Which is petty much the way title insurance works
>>> today, only it would just cut the state out of keeping the records.
>>
>>Who would enforce these certificates if someone stole your property. Who
>>would protect you from theft, assault, etc.? Minimal government has to
>>exist especially with a country this size. There's no getting around it.
>
>Note my use of the word insured, they would either pay you
>compensation or use an enforcement agency to remove the thief.
What enforcement agency? And what if the thief used one of his own?
Without minimal govt for this purpose, you'd be talking about Mad Max,
private armies, feudalism, etc.
> As for
>protect from assault and robbery, who protects you now and don't say
>the police? There are many court cases ruling the police don't have
>to protect you.
Agree with this one.
>You can protect you self (as those of us fortunate
>enough to live where the right to carry a concealed handgun has not
>been violated by the state.) as well as hire private security forces
>as part of insurance or local organization such a property owners
>association which is being done now.
>
>Yes, we can get around it. Any service which the government provide
>can be provide by private competing sources.
Most. And therein lies the difference between libs and anarchists.
Adrian
(Melissa Liberty) wrote:
>adri...@hotmail.com (Adrian) wrote in
><3ad88a14...@news-server.nc.rr.com>:
>
>>Nonsense. Of course you can have private property ownership -- you
>>just don't have the trappings of government to go along with it.
>
>How then would you protect your private property against anyone who decided
>to come along with a bigger force than you had, and claim it?
>
That is a coimpletely different question from whether their act of
taking it is stealing. The issue of whether or not property exists is
the issue of legitimacy of a claim to an object -- not of whether or
not you can have your claim illegitimately denied.
Just because a roving band of theives can take your property doesn't
meanthat it was not your property to begin with.
>>It
>>would be like saying to an anarchist who claims that order is possible
>>without government that your definition of order necessarily entails
>>government imposed order.
>
>Well, without any govt at all, it becomes strictly LOTJ; Law of the Jungle.
>
Well, that may be what actually happens. That doesn't mean that it is
automatically legitimate if it does indeed happen that way.
>>1) Private property doesn't derive from government
>
>No, but govt defends it, with filings of title and the force to enforce
>ownership.
>
>Without ANY govt, we'd revert to a Mad Max world with gangs of soldiers
>working for feudal warlords going around and taking what they please from
>anyone they wish, raping and killing along the way.
While I am inclined to agree with you to one extent or another, I
should note that there is significant disagreement on this issue of
fact. Nonetheless, it is beside the point if we are talking abotu the
source of property rights.
>
>Maybe this is what anarchists are advocating though, because they see some
>advantage in that, for them.
>
Generally speaking, no.
>>2) A minimal government probably will never happen
>>3) The evidence suggests that the more we minimize government the
>>better off we are
>
>True, to a point. I personally think the point should be to have what govt
>the people will freely support ( voluntary contributions versus taxation )
>within a framework of individual rights.
>
Voluntary contributions? That would be anarchy.
John A. Stovall
(Melissa Liberty) wrote:
>John A. Stovall <john.a....@mindspring.com> wrote in
><jdfhdts9ohq7uvd20...@4ax.com>:
>...
>>>> No, you could get certificates of title with insurance issued by
>>>> private companies. Which is petty much the way title insurance works
>>>> today, only it would just cut the state out of keeping the records.
>>>
>>>Who would enforce these certificates if someone stole your property. Who
>>>would protect you from theft, assault, etc.? Minimal government has to
>>>exist especially with a country this size. There's no getting around it.
>>
>>Note my use of the word insured, they would either pay you
>>compensation or use an enforcement agency to remove the thief.
>
>What enforcement agency? And what if the thief used one of his own?
The two competiting companies would most likely negotiate on behalf of
their clients, that's cheaper than ammo.
Oh, you haven't put that 2 ounces of gold 999 fine in my account at
the Laporte Industrial Bank,Ltd., Laporte, Colorado, for all this
tutoring I'm giving you. What are you some sort of free loading
Democrat, who doesn't know the meaning of TANSTAAFL?
You could also save your self that gold if you would get interested
(if you aren't interested why do you ask so many questions) and read
Dr. David Friedman's, "The Machinery of Freedom: A Guide to a Radical
Capitalism." Parts are even free on the net at:
http://www.best.com/~ddfr/Libertarian/Machinery_of_Freedom/MofF_Contents.html
You would find Chapter 29 most enlightening.
and you can buy it at:
http://laissezfairebooks.com/?
****************************************************
"The World's in a bad way, my man,
And bound to be worse before it mends;
Better to lie up in the mountain here
Four or five centuries, ............."
Said the old father of wild pigs,
Plowing the fallow on Mal Paso Mountain.
The Stars Go Over the Lonely Ocean
Robinson Jeffers
Melissa Liberty
<3ada5251...@news-server.nc.rr.com>:
>On Sun, 15 Apr 2001 23:54:49 GMT, Melissa...@NO-PRIVATE.org
>(Melissa Liberty) wrote:
>
>>adri...@hotmail.com (Adrian) wrote in
>><3ad88a14...@news-server.nc.rr.com>:
>>
>>>Nonsense. Of course you can have private property ownership -- you
>>>just don't have the trappings of government to go along with it.
>>
>>How then would you protect your private property against anyone who
>>decided to come along with a bigger force than you had, and claim it?
>>
>
>That is a coimpletely different question from whether their act of
>taking it is stealing. The issue of whether or not property exists is
>the issue of legitimacy of a claim to an object -- not of whether or
>not you can have your claim illegitimately denied.
>
>Just because a roving band of theives can take your property doesn't
>meanthat it was not your property to begin with.
I know that but we're discussing the reason for having at least limited govt
and I assert that it's necessary because things like property rights are hard
to defend with force without SOME govt at least. Without ANY govt, such
claims would come down to "might makes right", or whoever could raise the
biggest armed force to take and hold what they wanted.
>>>It
>>>would be like saying to an anarchist who claims that order is possible
>>>without government that your definition of order necessarily entails
>>>government imposed order.
>>
>>Well, without any govt at all, it becomes strictly LOTJ; Law of the
>>Jungle.
>>
>
>Well, that may be what actually happens. That doesn't mean that it is
>automatically legitimate if it does indeed happen that way.
Who would care? Without ANY govt, might would make right. Posession is nine
tenths of the law.
>>>1) Private property doesn't derive from government
>>
>>No, but govt defends it, with filings of title and the force to enforce
>>ownership.
>>
>>Without ANY govt, we'd revert to a Mad Max world with gangs of soldiers
>>working for feudal warlords going around and taking what they please from
>>anyone they wish, raping and killing along the way.
>
>While I am inclined to agree with you to one extent or another, I
>should note that there is significant disagreement on this issue of
>fact. Nonetheless, it is beside the point if we are talking abotu the
>source of property rights.
Without ANY govt to enforce property rights, you may as well not have any,
they'd be on paper only and anyone could come along with a bigger armed force
and take it away.
>>>2) A minimal government probably will never happen
>>>3) The evidence suggests that the more we minimize government the
>>>better off we are
>>
>>True, to a point. I personally think the point should be to have what
>>govt the people will freely support ( voluntary contributions versus
>>taxation ) within a framework of individual rights.
>>
>
>Voluntary contributions? That would be anarchy.
Nope, if the govt had to run solely on voluntary contributions, we'd only
have the amount of govt the people would support having, of their own free
will, IOW the right amount of govt. This is the way this country basically
started, before massive taxation set in.
Melissa Liberty
>On Mon, 16 Apr 2001 00:27:29 GMT, Melissa...@NO-PRIVATE.org
>(Melissa Liberty) wrote:
>
>>John A. Stovall <john.a....@mindspring.com> wrote in
>><jdfhdts9ohq7uvd20...@4ax.com>:
>>...
>>>>> No, you could get certificates of title with insurance issued by
>>>>> private companies. Which is petty much the way title insurance works
>>>>> today, only it would just cut the state out of keeping the records.
>>>>
>>>>Who would enforce these certificates if someone stole your property.
>>>>Who would protect you from theft, assault, etc.? Minimal government
>>>>has to exist especially with a country this size. There's no getting
>>>>around it.
>>>
>>>Note my use of the word insured, they would either pay you
>>>compensation or use an enforcement agency to remove the thief.
>>
>>What enforcement agency? And what if the thief used one of his own?
>
>The two competiting companies would most likely negotiate on behalf of
>their clients, that's cheaper than ammo.
Negotiate what? The title of my house is in my name. A thief comes along and
kicks me out and drafts a title in his name. No govt, so no title
enforcement. So do I have to negotiate some kind of compromise with the
thief? And without any govt to enforce it, why can't the thief just refuse to
negotiate and have his small army protect the property he stole from me? He
can tell the negotiators to pound sand.
>Oh, you haven't put that 2 ounces of gold 999 fine in my account at
>the Laporte Industrial Bank,Ltd., Laporte, Colorado, for all this
>tutoring I'm giving you. What are you some sort of free loading
>Democrat, who doesn't know the meaning of TANSTAAFL?
Being I never agreed to, that's ludicrous. Plus I could be teaching you about
the weaknesses and flaws in your proposed system and why libism is better.
:-)
>You could also save your self that gold if you would get interested
>(if you aren't interested why do you ask so many questions) and read
>Dr. David Friedman's, "The Machinery of Freedom: A Guide to a Radical
>Capitalism." Parts are even free on the net at:
>
>http://www.best.com/~ddfr/Libertarian/Machinery_of_Freedom/MofF_Contents.ht
>ml
>
>You would find Chapter 29 most enlightening.
>
>and you can buy it at:
>
>http://laissezfairebooks.com/?
IF I were interested.
Owl
news:V91C6.41$7P5....@news.pacbell.net...
> Who would enforce these certificates if someone stole your property. Who
> would protect you from theft, assault, etc.? Minimal government has to
> exist especially with a country this size. There's no getting around it.
You mean you haven't thought of a way of getting around it yet, because you
haven't researched the subject.
Read David Friedman, _The Machinery of Freedom_.
http://www.best.com/~ddfr/Libertarian/Machinery_of_Freedom/MofF_Chapter_29.h
tml
Owl
> >Oh, you haven't put that 2 ounces of gold 999 fine in my account at
> >the Laporte Industrial Bank,Ltd., Laporte, Colorado, for all this
> >tutoring I'm giving you. What are you some sort of free loading
> >Democrat, who doesn't know the meaning of TANSTAAFL?
>
> Being I never agreed to, that's ludicrous. Plus I could be teaching you
about
> the weaknesses and flaws in your proposed system and why libism is better.
You might be able to do that, if you actually knew anything about the
system. But in order to do that, you would first have to spend a half hour
reading something about it.
"It would only have taken a moment's thought. But thought is difficult, and
a moment is a long time."
Owl
> What enforcement agency? And what if the thief used one of his own?
>
> Without minimal govt for this purpose, you'd be talking about Mad Max,
> private armies, feudalism, etc.
Begging your pardon, but that's ridiculous. You need to do some reading:
http://www.best.com/~ddfr/Libertarian/Libertarian.html
Paul T. Ireland
Owl:
You mean you haven't thought of a way of getting around it yet, because you
haven't researched the subject.
Paul T. Ireland:
No, I mean there is no way around it. Anarchy is not the way. Governments
would spring up here and there as they always have. There are several
legitimate uses for the government and they are listed in the constitution.
The problem is when government steps beyond their authority to write and
enforce laws that are unconstitutional and to create unconstitutional social
programs which is happening with increased regularity. If we could force
government to do ONLY those things enumerated in the constitution, we'd be
living in the country with maximum liberty at minimal cost envisioned by the
founding fathers.
John A. Stovall
<ptir...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>
>Owl:
>
>You mean you haven't thought of a way of getting around it yet, because you
>haven't researched the subject.
>
>
>Paul T. Ireland:
>
>No, I mean there is no way around it. Anarchy is not the way. Governments
>would spring up here and there as they always have. There are several
>legitimate uses for the government and they are listed in the constitution.
Please name them and explain why they can't be met by a free market
offering the same services?
>The problem is when government steps beyond their authority to write and
>enforce laws that are unconstitutional and to create unconstitutional social
>programs which is happening with increased regularity. If we could force
>government to do ONLY those things enumerated in the constitution, we'd be
>living in the country with maximum liberty at minimal cost envisioned by the
>founding fathers.
Government will always over step those bounds because it's in be best
interest of those in power to do so. The only way to force them to
stay within those bounds, I think is a revolution every few years
where we hang most of the politicians as examples to others who might
wish to take up the profession.
*******************************************
".......................I believe in my tusks.
Long live freedom and damn the the ideologies,"
Said the gamey black-maned wild boar
Tusking the turf on Mal Paso Mountain.
"Stars Go Over The Lonely Ocean"
Robinson Jeffers
Melissa Liberty
>On Mon, 16 Apr 2001 17:09:00 -0700, "Paul T. Ireland"
><ptir...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>
>>
>>Owl:
>>
>>You mean you haven't thought of a way of getting around it yet, because
>>you haven't researched the subject.
>>
>>
>>Paul T. Ireland:
>>
>>No, I mean there is no way around it. Anarchy is not the way.
>>Governments would spring up here and there as they always have. There
>>are several legitimate uses for the government and they are listed in the
>>constitution.
>
>Please name them and explain why they can't be met by a free market
>offering the same services?
How would you enforce a state of anarchy? ( Heh heh...)
>>The problem is when government steps beyond their authority to write and
>>enforce laws that are unconstitutional and to create unconstitutional
>>social programs which is happening with increased regularity. If we
>>could force government to do ONLY those things enumerated in the
>>constitution, we'd be living in the country with maximum liberty at
>>minimal cost envisioned by the founding fathers.
>
>Government will always over step those bounds because it's in be best
>interest of those in power to do so. The only way to force them to
>stay within those bounds, I think is a revolution every few years
>where we hang most of the politicians as examples to others who might
>wish to take up the profession.
Go for it, but it's like that old saying; suppose they gave a war and no one
came. It could be awefully lonely for you if no one else was interested. And
indications are that most people are happy slobs, paying 5 months a year of
their income in tribute to Big Bro, and getting their new car, their beer and
their TV. ( bread and circuses )
Paul T. Ireland
You mean you haven't thought of a way of getting around it yet, because you
haven't researched the subject.
Paul T. Ireland:
No, I mean there is no way around it. Anarchy is not the way. Governments
would spring up here and there as they always have. There are several
legitimate uses for the government and they are listed in the constitution.
John A. Stovall:
Please name them and explain why they can't be met by a free market offering
the same services?
Paul T. Ireland:
Check out Article 1 - section 8, and Article 3 - section 2 of the U.S.
Constitution.
Paul T. Ireland:
The problem is when government steps beyond their authority to write and
enforce laws that are unconstitutional and to create unconstitutional social
programs which is happening with increased regularity. If we could force
government to do ONLY those things enumerated in the constitution, we'd be
living in the country with maximum liberty at minimal cost envisioned by the
founding fathers.
John A. Stovall:
Government will always over step those bounds because it's in be best
interest of those in power to do so. The only way to force them to stay
within those bounds, I think is a revolution every few years where we hang
most of the politicians as examples to others who might wish to take up the
profession.
Paul T. Ireland:
Government will only step over those boundaries when we allow it to happen.
The government stuck to the constitution for the first 130 years or so but
after government exceeds their authority once and gets away with it, the
next time will be easier. This is why all Americans have to practice the
eternal vigilance spoken of by Thomas Jefferson. In fact I consider this to
be one of our duties as citizens.
"The price of freedom is eternal vigilance."
-Thomas Jefferson (1743 - 1826)
Keith A Flick
> adri...@hotmail.com (Adrian) wrote in
> <3ad88a14...@news-server.nc.rr.com>:
>
> >Nonsense. Of course you can have private property ownership -- you
> >just don't have the trappings of government to go along with it.
>
> How then would you protect your private property against anyone who
decided
> to come along with a bigger force than you had, and claim it?
>
How do you protect your property now if your local, state or federal
government decides they want it? There are plenty of examples
now of people having their property taken away by (mostly city/county)
governments in order to give/sell it to other individuals/corporations.
I'd rather take my chances with me and my neighbors and friends
fighting against outlaws instead of fighting in courts against the
governments who control those courts (and use tax money to hire
lawyers).
<snip>
Owl
> No, I mean there is no way around it. Anarchy is not the way.
Is too.
I suggest reading the literature about anarcho-capitalism. You can start
with either Friedman's or Caplan's web pages on same:
http://www.best.com/~ddfr/Libertarian/Libertarian.html
http://www.gmu.edu/departments/economics/bcaplan/anarfaq.htm
> Governments
> would spring up here and there as they always have. There are several
Why do you think that?
You'll have to get the book, _The Machinery of Freedom_, to answer that. See
chapter 30.
> legitimate uses for the government and they are listed in the
constitution.
Which has been thoroughly ignored.
> The problem is when government steps beyond their authority to write and
> enforce laws that are unconstitutional and to create unconstitutional
social
> programs which is happening with increased regularity. If we could force
> government to do ONLY those things enumerated in the constitution, we'd be
> living in the country with maximum liberty at minimal cost envisioned by
the
> founding fathers.
Exactly WHO is going to force the government to do only those things
enumerated in the Constitution? Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
We tried the idea of constitutional democracy. It didn't work.
Owl
news:hJQC6.169$9n6.2...@news.pacbell.net...
> Government will only step over those boundaries when we allow it to
happen.
> The government stuck to the constitution for the first 130 years or so but
What about the alien and sedition acts, a mere 11 years after the
Constitution was adopted?
> after government exceeds their authority once and gets away with it, the
> next time will be easier. This is why all Americans have to practice the
> eternal vigilance spoken of by Thomas Jefferson.
Unrealistic. You have a constant free rider/public goods problem, which
you're assuming people are going to overcome, continuously, out of sheer
altruism.
The anarcho-capitalist system only requires people to act in their own
interests. Yours requires people to act as altruists.
Paul T. Ireland
Owl:
Unrealistic. You have a constant free rider/public goods problem, which
you're assuming people are going to overcome, continuously, out of sheer
altruism.
The anarcho-capitalist system only requires people to act in their own
interests. Yours requires people to act as altruists.
Paul T. Ireland:
I don't expect people to watch the governments every move to practice
eternal vigilance for altruistic reasons. I don't believe in altruism. I
expect the public to do it because it benefits them personally to do so.
Keeping a close eye on government and forcing them to stick to the
constitution makes sense to those who value their rights.
Paul T. Ireland
"Owl" <a@a.a> wrote in message news:9bhuct$mtl$1...@slb1.atl.mindspring.net...
> "Paul T. Ireland" <ptir...@pacbell.net> wrote in message
> news:9TLC6.125$9n6.1...@news.pacbell.net...
> > No, I mean there is no way around it. Anarchy is not the way.
>
> Is too.
>
> I suggest reading the literature about anarcho-capitalism. You can start
> with either Friedman's or Caplan's web pages on same:
> http://www.best.com/~ddfr/Libertarian/Libertarian.html
> http://www.gmu.edu/departments/economics/bcaplan/anarfaq.htm
>
Governments would spring up here and there as they always have.
Owl:
Why do you think that?
Paul T. Ireland:
Because historically it has always happened without exception.
Paul T. Ireland:
legitimate uses for the government and they are listed in the constitution.
Owl:
Which has been thoroughly ignored.
Owl:
Exactly WHO is going to force the government to do only those things
enumerated in the Constitution? Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
We tried the idea of constitutional democracy. It didn't work.
Paul T. Ireland:
The government answers to the people, not the other way around. The people
still have the ability to make the necessary changes until the idiots trying
to make guns illegal get their way. Then it's time for a revolution.
Our government hasn't stuck to the plan that the founding fathers laid out,
but it is still better than any other on the planet. And I'll take a weak
government over anarchy any day. What would happen to all the nuclear
weapons in a world without governments? Whomever was strong enough to take
them could use them to threaten everyone else in the world. I think you
should think anarchy out a bit more. I'm a minarchist, not an anarchist. I
think we should have the smallest government possible to do only the things
enumerated in the constitution and that's it.
Melissa Liberty
So why aren't people flocking to anarchism in droves? Could it be because
they're not convinced of their self interest in doing so?
Adrian
your wish.
On Mon, 16 Apr 2001 08:49:52 -0400, "Keith A Flick" <kaf...@sev.org>
wrote:
Adrian
(Melissa Liberty) wrote:
>adri...@hotmail.com (Adrian) wrote in
><3ada5251...@news-server.nc.rr.com>:
>
>>On Sun, 15 Apr 2001 23:54:49 GMT, Melissa...@NO-PRIVATE.org
>>(Melissa Liberty) wrote:
>>
>>>adri...@hotmail.com (Adrian) wrote in
>>><3ad88a14...@news-server.nc.rr.com>:
>>>
>>>>Nonsense. Of course you can have private property ownership -- you
>>>>just don't have the trappings of government to go along with it.
>>>
>>>How then would you protect your private property against anyone who
>>>decided to come along with a bigger force than you had, and claim it?
>>>
>>
>>That is a coimpletely different question from whether their act of
>>taking it is stealing. The issue of whether or not property exists is
>>the issue of legitimacy of a claim to an object -- not of whether or
>>not you can have your claim illegitimately denied.
>>
>>Just because a roving band of theives can take your property doesn't
>>meanthat it was not your property to begin with.
>
>I know that but we're discussing the reason for having at least limited govt
>and I assert that it's necessary because things like property rights are hard
>to defend with force without SOME govt at least. Without ANY govt, such
>claims would come down to "might makes right", or whoever could raise the
>biggest armed force to take and hold what they wanted.
>
My mistake, I thought you were deriving the political or moral right
to property (as opposed to the actual legal right).
<snip>
>>>
>>>True, to a point. I personally think the point should be to have what
>>>govt the people will freely support ( voluntary contributions versus
>>>taxation ) within a framework of individual rights.
>>>
>>
>>Voluntary contributions? That would be anarchy.
>
>Nope, if the govt had to run solely on voluntary contributions, we'd only
>have the amount of govt the people would support having, of their own free
>will, IOW the right amount of govt. This is the way this country basically
>started, before massive taxation set in.
>
But solely on voluntary contributions would be precisely the kind of
private protective agencies that David Friedman describes, for
instance. That really is anarchy, according to anarchists. Also,
that is not how the United States started at all. Right there in the
Constitution the feds have every right to collect tariffs and even
income tax under the right circumstances. The states had their own
governments on top of that that were guaranteed to be republican, but
had no particular restrictions on what they could do in terms of
taxes. In any case, while I would agree that there was no income tax
to speak of in the good ole days, it was far from a government
supported by voluntary contributions.
About the closest you can get to that is a premium paid to a private
protective agency.
Owl
> Paul T. Ireland:
> Governments would spring up here and there as they always have.
> Because historically it has always happened without exception.
The anarcho-capitalist system has never been tried before, with the possible
exception of medieval Iceland, so I don't know what you're basing your
predictions on.
> Exactly WHO is going to force the government to do only those things
> enumerated in the Constitution? Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
> Paul T. Ireland:
> The government answers to the people, not the other way around. The
people
> still have the ability to make the necessary changes until the idiots
trying
> to make guns illegal get their way. Then it's time for a revolution.
Your only solution, then, is that everyone must altruistically devote his
time to constantly watching the government, and then periodically large
numbers of people must be prepared to sacrifice their lives by physically
attacking the state?
Why is it that you think this is a realistic plan, once a central government
has already been established, but it is not realistic for the people to
prevent its establishment in the first place?
So far, you haven't given any argument for having government other than,
"Well, we've always had one, so it's inevitable."
> Our government hasn't stuck to the plan that the founding fathers laid
out,
> but it is still better than any other on the planet. And I'll take a weak
> government over anarchy any day.
I'll take anarchy over a bloated government that increases its abuses year
by year until millions have to die in bloody rebellion.
> What would happen to all the nuclear
> weapons in a world without governments?
Clearly, the nuclear weapons must be dismantled at the same time as the
government.
> Whomever was strong enough to take
> them could use them to threaten everyone else in the world.
You mean, sort of like the United States and Russian governments, which for
the first time in human history created the threat of wiping out all life on
earth? Or have you forgotten where those weapons came from? And who is
presently, every year, pouring billions of dollars into building,
maintaining, and researching new weapons of mass destruction? I find it
curious that you think the reason for having a government is so it can
protect us from a threat created by itself. So far, the only organizations
that have ever built nuclear weapons are governments -- and the same goes
for most other weapons, including all of the really destructive ones. When
the human species dies out, it will almost certainly be done by a government
(one or more).
> I think you
> should think anarchy out a bit more.
What makes you think I haven't? Before you advise me to think a bit more,
could you tell us how much research you yourself have done on anarchist
theory? Have you read anything about the subject?
> I'm a minarchist, not an anarchist. I
> think we should have the smallest government possible to do only the
things
> enumerated in the constitution and that's it.
But you have no realistic mechanism to propose for how the government is
going to be made to act as you say. Therefore, the question arises as to
which of us is the unrealistic utopian.
Owl
> I don't expect people to watch the governments every move to practice
> eternal vigilance for altruistic reasons. I don't believe in altruism. I
> expect the public to do it because it benefits them personally to do so.
This simply isn't true. Are you familiar with 'public goods' problems, or
the 'tragedy of the commons'?
Or, if this would be more convincing to you: I suggest you try out your
theory. Try having a few unjust laws repealed. Heck, start with just one.
Report back to us in a year on (a) how much benefit you got from your
effort, and (b) how much time and energy you expended. (Those who already
know the answer are excused from participating in the experiment.)
Owl
> So why aren't people flocking to anarchism in droves? Could it be because
> they're not convinced of their self interest in doing so?
Probably for the same reason they're not flocking to libertarianism, Miss
Liberty.
Melissa Liberty
Precisely. Because modern govt does a great job of convincing most people of
the benefits they derrive from it, without them realizing that said
"benefits" really came out of their own pockets.
It's like if Robin Hood stole half the Sheriff of Nottingham's gold from his
keep, then invited him to a "free dinner" and spent half the proceeds on it.
Melissa Liberty
Scott Weiser
>"Paul T. Ireland" <ptir...@pacbell.net> wrote in message
>news:1M%C6.37$q7.3...@news.pacbell.net...
>> Paul T. Ireland:
>> Governments would spring up here and there as they always have.
>> Paul T. Ireland:
>> Because historically it has always happened without exception.
>
>The anarcho-capitalist system has never been tried before, with the possible
>exception of medieval Iceland, so I don't know what you're basing your
>predictions on.
Reason, logic and an understanding of human behavior.
>
>> Exactly WHO is going to force the government to do only those things
>> enumerated in the Constitution? Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
>> Paul T. Ireland:
>> The government answers to the people, not the other way around. The
>people
>> still have the ability to make the necessary changes until the idiots
>trying
>> to make guns illegal get their way. Then it's time for a revolution.
>
>Your only solution, then, is that everyone must altruistically devote his
>time to constantly watching the government,
No, no one's required to do so, though it is a *very* good idea if
each person does. You can be a cipher in the political system if you
choose, but I don't think you should be allowed to complain about the
results if you make such a choice.
> and then periodically large
>numbers of people must be prepared to sacrifice their lives by physically
>attacking the state?
Well, if a sufficient number of people tend to their societal duties
and *do* scrutinize their government, and hold it accountable and keep
it in control, then no, such sacrifices are not required. Of course,
the citizenry must always retain the *ability* to remove an
overreaching government, by force of arms if necessary, but it is
hoped (and experience here so far has shown) that merely preparing for
such an eventuality, by keeping a large proportion of the people
armed, is usually sufficient to thwart the more egregious excesses of
government.
The lesser abuses and annoyances usually respond to the system once
the annoyance factor rises high enough to piss off the majority...or
before.
>
>Why is it that you think this is a realistic plan, once a central government
>has already been established, but it is not realistic for the people to
>prevent its establishment in the first place?
Because, to secure the blessings of liberty, governments are
necessarily instituted among men, anarchy not being an option.
>So far, you haven't given any argument for having government other than,
>"Well, we've always had one, so it's inevitable."
Well, the argument is: "We have a government because it's the only way
large groups of people can live together in relative peace and
harmony, as has been demonstrated time and time again throughout
history. This fact is unassailable and indisputeable, and any argument
that says that all or any government is unnecessary is a specious
logical and factual fallacy, usually spouted by ignorami, and is
unworthy of consideration by any thinking, rational human being."
How's that suit you?
>
>> Our government hasn't stuck to the plan that the founding fathers laid
>out,
>> but it is still better than any other on the planet. And I'll take a weak
>> government over anarchy any day.
>
>I'll take anarchy over a bloated government that increases its abuses year
>by year until millions have to die in bloody rebellion.
Really? Do you shoot well? Are you heavily armed? Do you shoot better
than *I* do? Do you never sleep at night? Are you constantly aware of
every possible threat to your life and are you prepared to fight for
your life and your goods at every second of your miserable existence?
You'd better be, because come anarchy, someone will be looking to take
away everything you have, including your life, merely because we're
stronger, smarter or better-armed than you are. Worse yet, no small
number of your fellow-men will be looking to make you into a sex
object, to be use at their pleasure.
I *am* heavily-armed, and I'm quite confident of my self-defense
abilities, and still anarchy scares the shit out of me, because in an
anarchy, there's *always* someone smarter, cleverer or just luckier
looking to exercise his force options to my detriment.
>> What would happen to all the nuclear
>> weapons in a world without governments?
>
>Clearly, the nuclear weapons must be dismantled at the same time as the
>government.
And who, exactly, is going to do that? Have you even the faintest
clue what happened when the Soviet Union was "dismantled" by anarchic
forces?
What happened was that Russia lost track of dozens, if not hundreds of
nuclear weapons, and nobody knows where they are now.
That's the problem with your stupid idea...in order to have an
"orderly transition" to anarchy, you have to have an *even stronger*
government just to prevent the orgy of revenge killings which
inevitably flare up once the rule of law is overthrown.
I take it you've never been to Bosnia...or any of the Balkan
states...in the last 10 years. That being the case, your arguments
aren't worth a pot full of piss.
>
>> Whomever was strong enough to take
>> them could use them to threaten everyone else in the world.
>
>You mean, sort of like the United States and Russian governments, which for
>the first time in human history created the threat of wiping out all life on
>earth?
But, notably, didn't. There's an important lesson there, if you have
the wit to learn it.
>Or have you forgotten where those weapons came from? And who is
>presently, every year, pouring billions of dollars into building,
>maintaining, and researching new weapons of mass destruction?
It ain't Saddam Hussein, or Moammar Quaddafi, or Osama Bin Laden, or
the Red Brigade, or Ayatollah Komeni, or any of a thousand other petty
tyrants, dictators or terrorists. And that's ONLY because the United
States, the "evil empire" of the Soviet Union, and the other
GOVERNMENTS of the world have decided to keep the number of seats in
the nuclear poker game limited.
In an anarchy, anybody with a nuclear bomb can sit at the table and
raise the stakes.
> I find it
>curious that you think the reason for having a government is so it can
>protect us from a threat created by itself.
No, we expect the government to protect us from OTHERS who have
created the same sort of threat. Others, who happen to include
would-be anarchists.
> So far, the only organizations
>that have ever built nuclear weapons are governments
Thank God. The biggest threat to human existence today is that some
zealot (or anarchist) with a grudge will toss a glass bottle of
Anthrax or variant Ebola into the New York subway...or the London
Underground, or the Paris subway.
But without the governments of the world, we would likely not exist as
a species today, because just because WE THINK governments are the
only builders of WMD's, doesn't mean that individuals or terrorist
groups *cannot* build such things. In an anarchy, it's absolutely
*certain* that such WMD's would be possessed by many different
factions, some without the same sorts of scruples about using them
against their enemies as major governments, who must ultimately answer
to the people, are.
Imagine Osama Bin Laden with a nuke and a Cessna 172 in Canada. He
could extirpate New York or Seattle with ease.
> -- and the same goes
>for most other weapons, including all of the really destructive ones. When
>the human species dies out, it will almost certainly be done by a government
>(one or more).
Your ignorant logic supposes that governments are the *only* agents
capable of such wrongs. That's a dangerously false assumption,
particularly when you're advocating anarchy as the alternative.
That's just plain stupid.
>
>> I think you
>> should think anarchy out a bit more.
>
>What makes you think I haven't?
Because if you had, you wouldn't be arguing for anarchy as a social
model, if you have even an iota of intelligence or reasoning ability.
> Before you advise me to think a bit more,
>could you tell us how much research you yourself have done on anarchist
>theory?
Anarchist theory is just that, theory. The anarchist ideal of a
non-coercive government in which everything is done by consensus is
little more than intellectual masturbation, because as bright and
shining as the "non-coercion" principles may be, they are utterly
unrealistic and ignore most of the common human behavioral traits,
which dooms the philosophy to a place as an amusing intellectual
aside, not a viable social model.
> Have you read anything about the subject?
Yes. And I discovered almost immediately, as any rational, sane
person would, that it's a stupid, ill-thought-out Utopian theory which
has absolutely no applicability to real human behavior or the real
world.
>
>> I'm a minarchist, not an anarchist. I
>> think we should have the smallest government possible to do only the
>things
>> enumerated in the constitution and that's it.
>
>But you have no realistic mechanism to propose for how the government is
>going to be made to act as you say.
Well, the "realistic mechanism to propose how the government is going
to be made to act" would be the digital computer and the
Internet...that being a perfectly realistic mechanisim of proposition.
As to a realistic *proposal* about how to make the government comply
with the will of the people, that's quite simple. You set out the
rules by which the *people* who exercise power as representatives in
the government may act. When they fail to act properly, the people
remove and punish them. Hopefully, the people can do this using the
peaceable systems we have in place. If that doesn't work, then we
resort to our privately-held arms to *enforce* our commands to our
representatives, using whatever force is required to remove the
individuals from power and restore the government to it's proper
place.
>Therefore, the question arises as to
>which of us is the unrealistic utopian.
No, there's no question at all, it's you....
--
Regards,
Scott Weiser
******
"I love the Internet, I no longer have to depend upon my
friends, family and co-workers, I can annoy people WORLDWIDE!"
******
"The Constitution is not a pool or a pond circumscribed by
limitations and constrained in its depth, it is a flowing
river of humanity, fed by the wellspring of liberty and
freedom. It is as deep as human emotion, as wide as
human thought and it circles the universe of belief
and expression and returns to feed itself, and thus
grows ever deeper and wider."
Copyright 2001 by Scott Weiser
To send me email, remove "private."
Scott Weiser
>"Paul T. Ireland" <ptir...@pacbell.net> wrote in message
>news:DF%C6.34$q7.3...@news.pacbell.net...
>> I don't expect people to watch the governments every move to practice
>> eternal vigilance for altruistic reasons. I don't believe in altruism. I
>> expect the public to do it because it benefits them personally to do so.
>
>This simply isn't true. Are you familiar with 'public goods' problems, or
>the 'tragedy of the commons'?
Yes, we are, which is why anarchy is rejected as a valid social model.
Evidently you aren't familiar with the concepts, or you wouldn't be
shooting your argument squarely in the heart by mentioning them.
>Or, if this would be more convincing to you: I suggest you try out your
>theory. Try having a few unjust laws repealed. Heck, start with just one.
>Report back to us in a year on (a) how much benefit you got from your
>effort, and (b) how much time and energy you expended. (Those who already
>know the answer are excused from participating in the experiment.)
What an empty argument. Even if true (which it's not), a particular
failure of the present system does not suggest that your utopian
anarchy is a rational, reasonable replacement. That's a simple
logical fallacy.
Scott Weiser
Precisely. The vast majority of people are too smart (it doesn't take
much intelligence) to be deluded by the sophistric and hollow
arguments for either system.
Adrian
>"Paul T. Ireland" <ptir...@pacbell.net> wrote in message
>news:1M%C6.37$q7.3...@news.pacbell.net...
>> Paul T. Ireland:
>> Governments would spring up here and there as they always have.
>> Paul T. Ireland:
>> Because historically it has always happened without exception.
>
>The anarcho-capitalist system has never been tried before, with the possible
>exception of medieval Iceland, so I don't know what you're basing your
>predictions on.
Sure it has. It is automatically tried every second of every day when
we all could start ignoring the government and decide not to. After
all they are just a bunch of outlaws right?
<snip>
>
>So far, you haven't given any argument for having government other than,
>"Well, we've always had one, so it's inevitable."
>
Given how easy it is not to have one, I would say that is not an
unreasonable assumption. In fact, given that all we have to do is
peacefully coexist and that this is supposedly so simple and common,
then it would be amazing that this experiement has not happened
thousands of times throughout history. But, alas since we all live
under governments now, they must have all failed.
But just in case, lets all try this experiment right now and ignore
the government.
>> Our government hasn't stuck to the plan that the founding fathers laid
>out,
>> but it is still better than any other on the planet. And I'll take a weak
>> government over anarchy any day.
>
>I'll take anarchy over a bloated government that increases its abuses year
>by year until millions have to die in bloody rebellion.
Except that anarchy is just one tiny step up what seems an inevitable
slope. Why is it that anarchy doesn't degenerate into a minimal
government for the same reasons a minimal government degenerates into
a tyranny?
<snip>
>
>But you have no realistic mechanism to propose for how the government is
>going to be made to act as you say. Therefore, the question arises as to
>which of us is the unrealistic utopian.
>
>
>
And what realistic mechanism do we have to keep anarchy from slipping
into a minimal government, or worse yet, just straight into a
dictatorship? Quite frankly, I have heard a lot of examples --
perhaps Iceland being the best case study. But even Friedman admits
that it is not an unequivocal example of successful anarchy. Far from
it, it is often characterized as chaotic and barbaric, but mainly it,
like any other examples of anarchic success stories, involves an
extremely sparce population. Even if it was a perfect example, it
would be throughly unimpressive for that reason alone. The whole
point is to show that anarchy will happen reasonably independently of
a vast restructuring of society that requires people to become
recluses or something like that. In fact, you could effectively do
that right now -- disappear into a national forest and never be seen
or heard from again. If you went up north, you could really
disappear.
And most of the rest of the examples I have heard are the same (e.g.
the old west, Shasta county, primitive societies). Interaction is
limited and when it it is possible it is always at the immediate
discretion of the agents. This drastically minimizes the issues that
a government is around to settle. On the other hand, if I am a city
boy from Chicago, it would be vry hard for me to just opt out of
interracting. How am I going to get my food? Where will I sleep? My
house is in the middle of a big city with lots of people all around.
In the long run I don't know anything about farming or hunting and
gathering -- how will I survive? And if I learn all the skills I
need, I would still have to radically change my way of life to opt
out. But none of this is true in the cases of sparse populations. I
can always opt out at apparently little cost of interacting with
strangers and brief acquaintances and go back home where the issues
that cause government are nonexistent. So, that means that the issues
that do exist if I do decide to interact with a stranger or
acquaintance is radically diminished if I can largely just walk away
at anytime.
The Chicago guy can do that with any one person he happens to be
dealing with, but he still has to go to another person and interact.
In other words, he can't just decide to screw the grocery stores and
grow his own food. The fact that he has to deal with someone makes it
a lot less reasonable to walk away from any given person he is dealing
with because he may well have to deal with similar issues with another
person. (Maybe that is just how the food distribution business is
going these days. Maybe it is just costly and he is going to have to
have deep pockets since he is completely ill-equiped to grow his own.
And so on.) So the issues that could make for crime and conflict
(including wars which strikes me as largely like crime on a grander
scale, but I imagine you must disagree with that characterization)
become much more emphasized when people are in this situation and the
motivating factors for government are much greater in magnitude.
Where are the examples for this case? How does anarchy work in this
case? The examples seem to dry up pretty quickly. The ones I have
heard about are not examples of anarchy so much as some privatization
under a very definite ruling body. (I'm thinking of 18th Century
England which is on David's site, and Rome which has a similar
scenario described in a series called a History of Private Life.) In
these cases, private law enforcement takes place, but the judges are
not private and it all happens int he context of a larger government,
so that it isn't the entire executive branch that is privatized. (In
other words, the army is not private.) Perhaps there is more out
there, but I think much less truly relevant cases. And yet, it is
always there. If it is so economically efficient, then why isn't it
tried more and why doesn't it work more? Because we're all used to
government?? Does that stop any other technological invention?
John A. Stovall
Why, nuclear explosives have perfectly good uses. The Dyson-Taylor
pulse ship space craft comes to mind along with blasting a sea level
canal in Nicaragua, and natural gas production enhancement.
If there's a market of nuclear explosives, let Bechtel make them.
***************************************************
Komesho Nonyati! as we cross the firing line!!
"Komesho Nonyati"
from "The Recces"
by Lourens Fourie
Scott Weiser
<ptir...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>Scott,
>
>Your post was a bit jumbled with some of my stuff and someone else's. I'm
>not an advocate for anarchy. I am fully aware that anarchy isn't a viable
>alternative to government. I am a minarchist though. I think we should
>have the smallest government possible to do only the things listed in the
>constitution and nothing more.
Well, you'll have to be a bit more specific when you say "government"
then. I would agree that the *federal* government should be
minimalist in nature, but the Constitution also says that all powers
not specifically reserved to the federal government are reserved to
the states, or to the people, respectively.
So, if we agree that the federal government must be strictly limited,
primarily by simply negating it's current definition of "interstate
commerce", thereby limiting it to regulating commerce among the
*states* (which is to say preventing things like state-border tariffs
and obstructions to interstate travel/commerce as opposed to today's
nearly plenary power over anything and everything which "might affect"
commerce that at some point is "interstate") and the other things like
national defense and suchlike (which includes taxation), how does that
affect the power of *state* governments in your minarchist plan?
How about *local* governments?
Keith A Flick
news:3adce561...@news-server.nc.rr.com...
> But according to you the government itself is an outlaw. So, you get
> your wish.
>
Where below did I say the government is acting contrary to the law?
The law says that the government is allowed to take your property and
to pay you what they say it is worth. That is called "eminent domain"
(sp?).
What I said was that it is easier to fight a band of outlaws who try to
take your property than it is to fight a government that decides that
it can get more tax income from your property if they take it from you
and give it to someone else (as is actually happening in various places).
If "your" governments do not act in your best interests what can -you-
do about it? Not much. They have the troops, guns, money laws and
lawyers on their side.
Owl
news:3adf1eee...@news.dimensional.com...
> >This simply isn't true. Are you familiar with 'public goods' problems, or
> >the 'tragedy of the commons'?
>
> Yes, we are, which is why anarchy is rejected as a valid social model.
Rejected by whom? You? I have no doubt that you reject it, knowing nothing
about it. However, that doesn't provide any reason why it should be
rejected.
> Evidently you aren't familiar with the concepts, or you wouldn't be
> shooting your argument squarely in the heart by mentioning them.
Evidently you think you know more than you do, which is why you make
confident assertions with nothing to back them up.
When you have an argument to make, let me know.
> >Or, if this would be more convincing to you: I suggest you try out your
> >theory. Try having a few unjust laws repealed. Heck, start with just one.
> >Report back to us in a year on (a) how much benefit you got from your
> >effort, and (b) how much time and energy you expended.
>
> What an empty argument. Even if true (which it's not),
What's not true? You said you knew what a public goods problem is. You don't
think that's a public goods problem?
Let me know when you have an argument to make.
> a particular
> failure of the present system does not suggest that your utopian
> anarchy is a rational, reasonable replacement.
No, but the fact that government is subject to the same problems it is
allegedly designed to solve means that it is not a rational, reasonable
system.
Of course, if you have a new plan for how government can be purged of the
problems that every government in history has had, we'd be glad to hear it.
Owl
> Precisely. Because modern govt does a great job of convincing most people
of
> the benefits they derrive from it, without them realizing that said
> "benefits" really came out of their own pockets.
I think that's why they control most of the schools.
> It's like if Robin Hood stole half the Sheriff of Nottingham's gold from
his
> keep, then invited him to a "free dinner" and spent half the proceeds on
it.
Yep.
Owl
> >The anarcho-capitalist system has never been tried before, with the
possible
> >exception of medieval Iceland, so I don't know what you're basing your
> >predictions on.
>
> Sure it has. It is automatically tried every second of every day when
> we all could start ignoring the government and decide not to.
You're kidding me, right?
I said that anarcho-capitalism hadn't been tried. Are you asking me to prove
to you that we are not in an anarcho-capitalist society right now? (Hint: in
order for us to be in such a society, the government would have to not
exist.)
> >So far, you haven't given any argument for having government other than,
> >"Well, we've always had one, so it's inevitable."
>
> Given how easy it is not to have one, I would say that is not an
> unreasonable assumption. In fact, given that all we have to do is
> peacefully coexist and that this is supposedly so simple and common,
No, we would also have to dismantle the existing state. I don't know why you
think this is so easy.
Are you saying that we shouldn't try anarcho-capitalism because it hasn't
been done before? Is that your basic objection?
> Except that anarchy is just one tiny step up what seems an inevitable
> slope. Why is it that anarchy doesn't degenerate into a minimal
> government for the same reasons a minimal government degenerates into
> a tyranny?
Friedman gives economic arguments showing that, once the anarcho-capitalist
institutions were in place, it would be extremely difficult to establish a
government. Essentially, it is almost impossible to establish a monopoly in
a competitive marketplace, unless (a) one (already) has a government that
one can lobby for special legislation, or (b) the market is a natural
monopoly (a market in which the efficient provision of the service requires
a single provider). There are many historical cases showing that the
establishment of a monopoly almost always requires government intervention.
There is no reason to think the market for personal protection is a natural
monopoly, and we are assuming a situation in which there is no government
already. Thus, the establishment of such a government would be extremely
difficult, for the standard economic reasons.
> On the other hand, if I am a city
> boy from Chicago, it would be vry hard for me to just opt out of
> interracting. How am I going to get my food? Where will I sleep? My
> house is in the middle of a big city with lots of people all around.
Etc.
You seem to think that the anarchist idea is to have no interaction between
people. This is not so.
> So the issues that could make for crime and conflict
> (including wars which strikes me as largely like crime on a grander
> scale, but I imagine you must disagree with that characterization)
Why would I disagree with that? That is the most insightful statement in
your message.
War is just mass murder, carried out by governments.
> Where are the examples for this case? How does anarchy work in this
> case? The examples seem to dry up pretty quickly. The ones I have
The private protection agencies and arbitration agencies take over the
functions of the state. As to examples, I stated earlier that the system
hadn't really been tried. Therefore, I must ask again: Are you saying it
should not be tried simply because it hasn't been tried so far?
> If it is so economically efficient, then why isn't it
> tried more and why doesn't it work more?
Not everything that's good is actually done, and not everything that's done
is good. Surely you've noticed that. A few hundred years ago, it might have
been said that democracy had almost never been tried before ("And see how it
failed! They were taken over by the Romans!") Does that mean it shouldn't
have been tried? That it was a bad idea?
> Because we're all used to
> government??
No doubt part of it is because most people share the same false beliefs that
you do. They think their government is 'serving' them. Sadly, the facts are
otherwise.
> Does that stop any other technological invention?
Anarchy isn't a technological invention, but rather a social system.
Changing an entire social system is generally very difficult and costly.
Scott Weiser
>"Scott Weiser" <wei...@private.altnews.com> wrote in message
>news:3adf1eee...@news.dimensional.com...
>> >This simply isn't true. Are you familiar with 'public goods' problems, or
>> >the 'tragedy of the commons'?
>>
>> Yes, we are, which is why anarchy is rejected as a valid social model.
>
>Rejected by whom?
Everyone. Or at least anyone with an iota of wit or intelligence.
> You?
Of course. I have both wit and intelligence.
> I have no doubt that you reject it, knowing nothing
>about it.
But I do know about it, which is why I reject it.
>However, that doesn't provide any reason why it should be
>rejected.
You did a fine job of providing two such reasons just above, though
obviously you are not capable of comprehending how that is.
>
>> Evidently you aren't familiar with the concepts, or you wouldn't be
>> shooting your argument squarely in the heart by mentioning them.
>
>Evidently you think you know more than you do,
Obviously, I know more than you do.
> which is why you make
>confident assertions with nothing to back them up.
A million years of human history back them up. What more do I need?
>
>When you have an argument to make, let me know.
If you're so incapacitated that you require notification, it's hardly
worth the effort, don't you think?
>
>> >Or, if this would be more convincing to you: I suggest you try out your
>> >theory. Try having a few unjust laws repealed. Heck, start with just one.
>> >Report back to us in a year on (a) how much benefit you got from your
>> >effort, and (b) how much time and energy you expended.
>>
>> What an empty argument. Even if true (which it's not),
>
>What's not true?
Your argument. Duh.
> You said you knew what a public goods problem is. You don't
>think that's a public goods problem?
First, you have to identify an "unjust law," and we must agree that it
*is* an "unjust law." Only then can we assess the likelyhood of its
repeal. Fact is that all kinds of unjust laws have been repealed in
our history. One notable example is slavery.
>
>Let me know when you have an argument to make.
Why? Would your wit improve with notification?
>
>> a particular
>> failure of the present system does not suggest that your utopian
>> anarchy is a rational, reasonable replacement.
>
>No, but the fact that government is subject to the same problems it is
>allegedly designed to solve means that it is not a rational, reasonable
>system.
Don't be silly. Just because airplanes occasionally crash doesn't mean
commercial air travel is an unreasonable, irrational mode of travel.
Your's is the fallacy of the excluded middle.
>
>Of course, if you have a new plan for how government can be purged of the
>problems that every government in history has had, we'd be glad to hear it.
Why should the metric be a "purge" of problems that *every* government
faces? The process of government is in reacting to problems and trying
to solve them, based on what the people who make up the society, and
the government both need and want.
You expect perfection, and when you're disappointed, you demand chaos
instead.
Government is an ongoing, iterative process, not a perfected
end-state. It can never *be* a perfected end-state...no government,
or non-government, or system of civilization can ever be such, because
such processes have as their fundamental base, human behavior, which
itself cannot be perfectly controlled in an end-state condition.
Thus, working to solve the "problems" as they crop up is, and will
always be the function of society and government, and the "problems"
faced will be different for each different human interaction that
results in a "problem." That is true of *all* human societies,
regardless of the form of "government" which exists.
David Friedman
> > Precisely. Because modern govt does a great job of convincing most people
> of
> > the benefits they derrive from it, without them realizing that said
> > "benefits" really came out of their own pockets.
>
> I think that's why they control most of the schools.
John Lott actually has an old article offering statistical evidence for
that conjecture--that schooling is so uniformly a government produced
service because control of schooling reduces the cost of controlling a
population.
--
David Friedman
www.daviddfriedman.com/
Owl
> >The anarcho-capitalist system has never been tried before, with the
possible
> >exception of medieval Iceland, so I don't know what you're basing your
> >predictions on.
>
> Reason, logic and an understanding of human behavior.
I eagerly await your demonstration of this logic and understanding, which
has so far not made an appearance. (Hint: Merely saying "Reason tells me
that x" does not constitute an actual use of reason.)
> >Your only solution, then, is that everyone must altruistically devote his
> >time to constantly watching the government,
>
> No, no one's required to do so, though it is a *very* good idea if
> each person does.
So your solution is that you hope maybe people will altruistically devote
their time to constantly watching the government, although there will be no
incentives for them to do so. Perhaps I did not make my point explicit
enough, so let me say what I think is the problem there: People generally do
not act against their own interests. They generally act in their own,
personal interests, as they perceive them. Therefore, a social system that
can work only if people choose, voluntarily, to devote significant resources
to the betterment of society (receiving relatively small rewards in return),
will simply not work. Government in general is such a system. Thus, it will
not work.
(The above, by the way, is an example of an argument. Notice how it contains
identifiable premises and a conclusion, with a logical link between them.)
> >Why is it that you think this is a realistic plan, once a central
government
> >has already been established, but it is not realistic for the people to
> >prevent its establishment in the first place?
>
> Because, to secure the blessings of liberty, governments are
> necessarily instituted among men, anarchy not being an option.
That is an example of empty rhetoric, rather than argument. You didn't give
a reason. Instead, you just asserted that we have to have a government.
> >So far, you haven't given any argument for having government other than,
> >"Well, we've always had one, so it's inevitable."
>
> Well, the argument is: "We have a government because it's the only way
> large groups of people can live together in relative peace and
> harmony, as has been demonstrated time and time again throughout
> history. This fact is unassailable and indisputeable, and any argument
> that says that all or any government is unnecessary is a specious
> logical and factual fallacy, usually spouted by ignorami, and is
> unworthy of consideration by any thinking, rational human being."
>
> How's that suit you?
That is not an argument. If you think that it is, I suggest that you take
some philosophy classes in order to learn what an argument is. (This is a
serious suggestion.)
That is, rather, an example of (a) empty rhetoric, (b) unsupported
assertion, and (c) personal attacks. In particular:
- You merely *asserted* that government was the only way of providing peace.
But that is the very point in dispute. (unsupported assertion)
- You asserted that this had been 'demonstrated time and again,' but you did
not provide any such demonstration, nor even any evidence for the claim.
(unsupported assertion)
- You then said this was "unassailable and indisputable". (empty rhetoric)
- You then concluded by referring to me as "ignorami", etc. (personal
attack)
This concludes your lesson in remedial logic for the day. I suggest that you
either learn what logic is, or else refrain from claiming "reason and logic"
for your side.
> You'd better be, because come anarchy, someone will be looking to take
> away everything you have, including your life, merely because we're
> stronger, smarter or better-armed than you are. Worse yet, no small
> number of your fellow-men will be looking to make you into a sex
> object, to be use at their pleasure.
This is known as arbitrary speculation. In fact, polls have shown that most
criminals are more afraid of running into an armed citizen than they are of
running into the police. Your above fantasy that (a) suddenly all the
criminals would enormously increase their activities, or (b) suddenly
normal, noncriminals would turn into raving lunatics, is therefore baseless.
Furthermore, your remarks show no awareness whatever of the mechanisms of an
anarcho-capitalist society for controlling crime, nor the arguments showing
why they would be more efficient. Given this, I must question your claim
(below) to have studied the issue.
> I *am* heavily-armed, and I'm quite confident of my self-defense
> abilities, and still anarchy scares the shit out of me,
This is an appeal to emotion. You say you are scared, but there is no
logical basis for your fear--at least, none we have seen so far.
> because in an
> anarchy, there's *always* someone smarter, cleverer or just luckier
> looking to exercise his force options to my detriment.
There are plenty of people right now (the same people, in fact) who are
smarter, cleverer, etc., than you -- and a fortiori, smarter and cleverer
than the cops.
> But without the governments of the world, we would likely not exist as
> a species today, because just because WE THINK governments are the
> only builders of WMD's, doesn't mean that individuals or terrorist
> groups *cannot* build such things. In an anarchy, it's absolutely
> *certain* that such WMD's would be possessed by many different
> factions, some without the same sorts of scruples about using them
> against their enemies as major governments, who must ultimately answer
> to the people, are.
Etc.
I think I've already addressed this issue sufficiently. I don't think you
are capable of thinking about it objectively, so I won't spend too much time
on it. To repeat: every known case of a weapon of mass destruction being
invented, produced, or deployed in history, was invented, produced, and/or
deployed by a government. Therefore, although it is conceivable that a
non-government would do so as well, general principles of inductive
reasoning indicate that governments pose a far greater risk to the survival
of the human species than private individuals do.
(That was another example of what is called an "argument." Take note.)
> > Before you advise me to think a bit more,
> >could you tell us how much research you yourself have done on anarchist
> >theory?
>
> Anarchist theory is just that, theory.
I notice that this doesn't answer my question.
> The anarchist ideal of a
> non-coercive government in which everything is done by consensus is
This, however, does, the answer being "almost none," since that is not the
anarchist ideal. I would like to suggest that you learn something about a
belief system before making pronouncements about it.
> > Have you read anything about the subject?
>
> Yes.
Could you tell us which books or articles about it you have read? They
apparently were not the ones I read.
> And I discovered almost immediately, as any rational, sane
> person would, that it's a stupid, ill-thought-out Utopian theory which
> has absolutely no applicability to real human behavior or the real
> world.
You seem to be intent on proving yourself to be an irrational dogmatist,
rather than attempting to persuade anyone of anything, let alone learn
anything yourself. You're doing a good job of it so far.
> As to a realistic *proposal* about how to make the government comply
> with the will of the people, that's quite simple. You set out the
> rules by which the *people* who exercise power as representatives in
> the government may act.
I have pointed out several times in the past few days that we already tried
constitutional democracy, and that it didn't work, because the government
simply violates the constitution.
> When they fail to act properly, the people
> remove and punish them. Hopefully, the people can do this using the
> peaceable systems we have in place. If that doesn't work, then we
> resort to our privately-held arms to *enforce* our commands to our
> representatives, using whatever force is required to remove the
> individuals from power and restore the government to it's proper
> place.
I've already pointed out why this is unlikely as well. (Hint: "public goods
problem.")
> >Therefore, the question arises as to
> >which of us is the unrealistic utopian.
>
> No, there's no question at all, it's you....
If that's so, then it seems that unrealistic utopians are the only ones with
arguments, and you realistic folks only have rhetoric and personal insults
at your disposal. Strange, isn't that?
David Friedman
wei...@private.altnews.com (Scott Weiser) wrote:
> > You said you knew what a public goods problem is. You don't
> >think that's a public goods problem?
>
> First, you have to identify an "unjust law," and we must agree that it
> *is* an "unjust law."
I'm afraid you didn't follow his argument, possibly because you are less
familiar with public good problems than you think.
He was referring to the particular public good problem associated with
democracy. One of its forms is rational ignorance--are you familiar with
the term?
You can find quite an extensive explanation of market
failures/collective action problems, including the public good problem
and rational ignorance, in _Price Theory: An Intermediate Text_, webbed
on my page.
--
David Friedman
www.daviddfriedman.com/
Scott Weiser
>"Scott Weiser" <wei...@private.altnews.com> wrote in message
>news:3ade1748...@news.dimensional.com...
>> >The anarcho-capitalist system has never been tried before, with the
>possible
>> >exception of medieval Iceland, so I don't know what you're basing your
>> >predictions on.
>>
>> Reason, logic and an understanding of human behavior.
>
>I eagerly await your demonstration of this logic and understanding, which
>has so far not made an appearance. (Hint: Merely saying "Reason tells me
>that x" does not constitute an actual use of reason.)
Indeed. Then again, the question was "I don't know what you're basing
your predictions on." I answered that.
>
>> >Your only solution, then, is that everyone must altruistically devote his
>> >time to constantly watching the government,
>>
>> No, no one's required to do so, though it is a *very* good idea if
>> each person does.
>
>So your solution is that you hope maybe people will altruistically devote
>their time to constantly watching the government, although there will be no
>incentives for them to do so.
There's every incentive to do so. It's in their vested interests to
carefully scrutinize their government in order to keep it in control.
>Perhaps I did not make my point explicit
>enough, so let me say what I think is the problem there: People generally do
>not act against their own interests. They generally act in their own,
>personal interests, as they perceive them.
Generally speaking, this is true, though there are frequent
exceptions, and it is those exceptions that make government necessary.
> Therefore, a social system that
>can work only if people choose, voluntarily, to devote significant resources
>to the betterment of society (receiving relatively small rewards in return),
>will simply not work. Government in general is such a system. Thus, it will
>not work.
But that's not how our social system or government works, so your
argument is non sequitur.
Our society offers *great* rewards in return for minimal investment in
altruistic behavior. Most investment is direct vested-interest
investment in our society in return for direct benefits, such as
roads, police and fire coverage, sewer systems, water systems, and all
manner of other public benefits which we all get for our tax money.
>> >Why is it that you think this is a realistic plan, once a central
>government
>> >has already been established, but it is not realistic for the people to
>> >prevent its establishment in the first place?
>>
>> Because, to secure the blessings of liberty, governments are
>> necessarily instituted among men, anarchy not being an option.
>
>That is an example of empty rhetoric, rather than argument. You didn't give
>a reason. Instead, you just asserted that we have to have a government.
It's a perfectly good argument, but one you're evidently unable to
comprehend.
>
>> >So far, you haven't given any argument for having government other than,
>> >"Well, we've always had one, so it's inevitable."
>>
>> Well, the argument is: "We have a government because it's the only way
>> large groups of people can live together in relative peace and
>> harmony, as has been demonstrated time and time again throughout
>> history. This fact is unassailable and indisputeable, and any argument
>> that says that all or any government is unnecessary is a specious
>> logical and factual fallacy, usually spouted by ignorami, and is
>> unworthy of consideration by any thinking, rational human being."
>>
>> How's that suit you?
>
>That is not an argument.
Of course it is. Premise: people have an intrinsic need to live
together in peace and harmony.
Premise: no other form of social organization other than government
has been successful in creating peace and harmony.
Conclusion: Government is necessary.
> If you think that it is, I suggest that you take
>some philosophy classes in order to learn what an argument is. (This is a
>serious suggestion.)
Pot, kettle, black.
>That is, rather, an example of (a) empty rhetoric, (b) unsupported
>assertion, and (c) personal attacks. In particular:
Pot, kettle, black.
>
>- You merely *asserted* that government was the only way of providing peace.
That is my premise, yes.
>But that is the very point in dispute. (unsupported assertion)
And I provided evidence in support of my assertion, to wit: "(the
premise has been) demonstrated time and time again throughout
history."
This is a fact. It is a proveable, proven fact, and one which is
well-known. You may dispute that it is a fact, but that is YOUR
"unsupported assertion." I maintain that the historical record is
sufficient evidence so far as the debate has gone.
>- You asserted that this had been 'demonstrated time and again,' but you did
>not provide any such demonstration, nor even any evidence for the claim.
>(unsupported assertion)
Nor did I need to provide any such demonstration at this juncture. The
*strength* of my proofs is another matter, and we may proceed
eventually into discussing descrete examples, but for the nonce, it is
sufficient to look to the general historical record to see that at no
time in history have a people who were without government of one sort
of another, able to live in relative peace and harmony. That is
something that YOU cannot prove.
>- You then said this was "unassailable and indisputable". (empty rhetoric)
No, it's simple fact.
>- You then concluded by referring to me as "ignorami", etc. (personal
>attack)
That I concede, however I plead provocation. I'm willing to retract
and refrain from ad hominem if you are, and if you're willing to argue
rationally and with debatorial objectivity.
>
>This concludes your lesson in remedial logic for the day.
Your didactic skills are questionable at best.
> I suggest that you
>either learn what logic is, or else refrain from claiming "reason and logic"
>for your side.
Well, evidently my version of logic is somewhat different from yours.
As to whose version is correct, the debate will likely reveal that.
>
>> You'd better be, because come anarchy, someone will be looking to take
>> away everything you have, including your life, merely because we're
>> stronger, smarter or better-armed than you are. Worse yet, no small
>> number of your fellow-men will be looking to make you into a sex
>> object, to be use at their pleasure.
>
>This is known as arbitrary speculation.
But of course. It is, however, quite a likely sceneario in an
anarchy, which history again amply proves.
> In fact, polls have shown that most
>criminals are more afraid of running into an armed citizen than they are of
>running into the police.
I agree. However, that fact doesn't apply if there is no law
enforcement, which is, of course, one of the prerequisites of anarchy.
In an anarchy, it's pure jungle law, survival of the fittest.
>Your above fantasy that (a) suddenly all the
>criminals would enormously increase their activities,
Absent a force capable of suppressing them? You betcha. If you doubt
me, take a trip to Bosnia or Somalia sometime, then get back to
us...if you survive the experience.
> or (b) suddenly
>normal, noncriminals would turn into raving lunatics, is therefore baseless.
Well, there is a third class which you overlook: those who *would*
become criminals but for the laws and those who enforce them. They
would indeed become predators in an anarchy, if they thought they
could get away with it.
And nobody suggested such things would happen overnight...it might
take a while, but the decline into savagry is inevitable.
>
>Furthermore, your remarks show no awareness whatever of the mechanisms of an
>anarcho-capitalist society for controlling crime,
Sure I am. He who has the biggest, meanest thugs, rules.
> nor the arguments showing
>why they would be more efficient.
Oh, they would be *very* efficient. The nazi SS was extremely
efficient. Ruthless brutality is always efficient, but hardly humane.
Not my cup of tea, thanks.
>Given this, I must question your claim
>(below) to have studied the issue.
Question away.
>
>> I *am* heavily-armed, and I'm quite confident of my self-defense
>> abilities, and still anarchy scares the shit out of me,
>
>This is an appeal to emotion.
No, it's a sarcastic rhetorical aside.
> You say you are scared, but there is no
>logical basis for your fear--at least, none we have seen so far.
That you can't see the logical basis doesn't mean it doesn't exist.
>
>> because in an
>> anarchy, there's *always* someone smarter, cleverer or just luckier
>> looking to exercise his force options to my detriment.
>
>There are plenty of people right now (the same people, in fact) who are
>smarter, cleverer, etc., than you -- and a fortiori, smarter and cleverer
>than the cops.
Indeed, and it's a never-ending battle for the police to keep up with
them, and in no small number of cases, crime does indeed pay,
sometimes handsomely. That being the case, it's hardly rational to
give such predators *even more* latitude to victimize others.
We live on a knife edge all the time, as anybody in Somalia can tell
you...or Rawanda.
>
>> But without the governments of the world, we would likely not exist as
>> a species today, because just because WE THINK governments are the
>> only builders of WMD's, doesn't mean that individuals or terrorist
>> groups *cannot* build such things. In an anarchy, it's absolutely
>> *certain* that such WMD's would be possessed by many different
>> factions, some without the same sorts of scruples about using them
>> against their enemies as major governments, who must ultimately answer
>> to the people, are.
>
>Etc.
>
>I think I've already addressed this issue sufficiently.
You haven't addressed it at all, so far as I'm aware.
> I don't think you
>are capable of thinking about it objectively,
I'm certain you can't think about it rationally, so we're even.
> so I won't spend too much time
>on it.
Don't strain your tiny mind, wouldn't want you to do yourself an
injury.
> To repeat: every known case of a weapon of mass destruction being
>invented, produced, or deployed in history, was invented, produced, and/or
>deployed by a government.
Actually, this is demonstrably and obviously not the case. In fact,
every weapon, of *any* kind, was invented, produced and deployed by
HUMAN BEINGS. Governments are philosophical entities which have no
corporeal being and cannot do any act at all.
How's that for dissecting your "logic?"
> Therefore, although it is conceivable that a
>non-government would do so as well, general principles of inductive
>reasoning indicate that governments pose a far greater risk to the survival
>of the human species than private individuals do.
This is an obvious logical fallacy. Your premise is: Governments
sometimes do bad things.
Your conclusion is: Therefore, governments will do bad things more
than private individuals.
Problem: You're missing a premise. Thus, you've constructed a faulty
syllogism in which the conclusion is unconnected to the premise.
It simply does not follow that while governments may do bad things
from time to time, individuals would be any less (or any more, for
that reason) likely to do equally bad things.
And if we examine the missing premise: Individuals are less likely to
do bad things than governments, we find that again history proves that
your assertion is unfounded, because, of course, "governments" are not
physical creatures which do anything at all, they are philosophical
collectives of INDIVIDUALS, who *do* commit acts, both bad and good.
Further, given a choice between anarchy and government, history again
proves that governments are often the most effective organizational
structure for securing human survival and safety which exists. This
is because in every case where anarchy has reigned, humanity has
suffered and died en masse, until government is reasserted and social
order restored. Concrete examples: Bosnia, Serbia, Herzagovina,
Rawanda, Somalia, Nigeria, Sierra Leone, etc., etc..
>(That was another example of what is called an "argument." Take note.)
It wasn't much of an argument, however, as I've shown...take note.
>
>> > Before you advise me to think a bit more,
>> >could you tell us how much research you yourself have done on anarchist
>> >theory?
>>
>> Anarchist theory is just that, theory.
>
>I notice that this doesn't answer my question.
Well, you're not incurably stupid, it seems.
>
>> The anarchist ideal of a
>> non-coercive government in which everything is done by consensus is
>
>This, however, does, the answer being "almost none," since that is not the
>anarchist ideal. I would like to suggest that you learn something about a
>belief system before making pronouncements about it.
I've a better idea, why don't you illuminate us all. What, exactly,
is your "belief system?"
>
>> > Have you read anything about the subject?
>>
>> Yes.
>
>Could you tell us which books or articles about it you have read?
No.
> They
>apparently were not the ones I read.
That would be unsurprising, since I suspect the ones you read were
published under the author's pseudonym "Dr. Seuss."
>
>> And I discovered almost immediately, as any rational, sane
>> person would, that it's a stupid, ill-thought-out Utopian theory which
>> has absolutely no applicability to real human behavior or the real
>> world.
>
>You seem to be intent on proving yourself to be an irrational dogmatist,
Pot, kettle, black.
>rather than attempting to persuade anyone of anything,
I'm here to debate and debunk, not persuade.
> let alone learn
>anything yourself.
I learn more and more every day. Today, for example, I learned that
there is yet another anarchist Netwit who thinks that pontification is
the equivalent of reasoned debate.
>You're doing a good job of it so far.
High honor, coming from you.
>
>> As to a realistic *proposal* about how to make the government comply
>> with the will of the people, that's quite simple. You set out the
>> rules by which the *people* who exercise power as representatives in
>> the government may act.
>
>I have pointed out several times in the past few days that we already tried
>constitutional democracy, and that it didn't work,
Which, of course, is an unfounded, unproven, specious and
factually-incorrect assertion.
> because the government
>simply violates the constitution.
Government may attempt to do so, but that is why the ultimate power
remains with the people, who can bring a recalcitrant or out of
control government back within the bounds of its lawful authority.
>
>> When they fail to act properly, the people
>> remove and punish them. Hopefully, the people can do this using the
>> peaceable systems we have in place. If that doesn't work, then we
>> resort to our privately-held arms to *enforce* our commands to our
>> representatives, using whatever force is required to remove the
>> individuals from power and restore the government to it's proper
>> place.
>
>I've already pointed out why this is unlikely as well.
Well, you may have asserted it, but that's hardly a supported
argument.
>> >Therefore, the question arises as to
>> >which of us is the unrealistic utopian.
>>
>> No, there's no question at all, it's you....
>
>If that's so, then it seems that unrealistic utopians are the only ones with
>arguments,
To you, I'm sure it seems so, but that's hardly surprising.
> and you realistic folks only have rhetoric and personal insults
>at your disposal.
Pot, kettle, black.
> Strange, isn't that?
Not really, it's pretty much de rigeur here in the Usenet. Rational
political discussions are few and far between. Perhaps we can have
one if we both choose to avoid the sly, and not-so-sly insults,
perhaps not.
Scott Weiser
wrote:
>In article <3aea4060....@news.dimensional.com>,
> wei...@private.altnews.com (Scott Weiser) wrote:
>
>> > You said you knew what a public goods problem is. You don't
>> >think that's a public goods problem?
>>
>> First, you have to identify an "unjust law," and we must agree that it
>> *is* an "unjust law."
>
>I'm afraid you didn't follow his argument, possibly because you are less
>familiar with public good problems than you think.
Or, I'm familiar with it, but you're incapable of comprehending the
discussion, which is evident from your editing of the context of the
statement.
>
>He was referring to the particular public good problem associated with
>democracy. One of its forms is rational ignorance--are you familiar with
>the term?
Yes. Are you familiar with the term "out of context?"
Adrian
>"Adrian" <adri...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>news:3add1b57...@news-server.nc.rr.com...
>> >The anarcho-capitalist system has never been tried before, with the
>possible
>> >exception of medieval Iceland, so I don't know what you're basing your
>> >predictions on.
>>
>> Sure it has. It is automatically tried every second of every day when
>> we all could start ignoring the government and decide not to.
>
>You're kidding me, right?
>
>I said that anarcho-capitalism hadn't been tried. Are you asking me to prove
>to you that we are not in an anarcho-capitalist society right now? (Hint: in
>order for us to be in such a society, the government would have to not
>exist.)
>
It just failed that badly. There are people out there that claim to
be part of "the government". Why not ignore them? They have no
legitimate authority over you. If everyone did it, then the
government would instantly go away. For instance, if no one paid
their taxes, what could the IRS possibly do? Antagonize a few people
for awhile until they finally disband? That si no different from the
rogue protective agency in anarchy. Plus what if all the IRS agents
finally wise up and decide to just leave the government for a more
productive life.
Every second of every day is abother oportunity for us all to just
live in anarchy. But the vast majority of us choose not to.
>> >So far, you haven't given any argument for having government other than,
>> >"Well, we've always had one, so it's inevitable."
>>
>> Given how easy it is not to have one, I would say that is not an
>> unreasonable assumption. In fact, given that all we have to do is
>> peacefully coexist and that this is supposedly so simple and common,
>
>No, we would also have to dismantle the existing state. I don't know why you
>think this is so easy.
What do you have to do to "dismantle" it? Just start ignoring it. It
is a rogue protective agency. You don't have to dismantle a rogue
protective agency.
>
>Are you saying that we shouldn't try anarcho-capitalism because it hasn't
>been done before? Is that your basic objection?
>
I'm saying that if you have to try anarcho-capitalism, then you have
already assumed it cannot work. The reason I say this is because
anarcho-capitalism is not the kind of thing that "we" can "institute"
or "try" or "establish". It has to either exist or not exist. It is
the lack of any such institution or establishment. (Compare this to
atheism and belief in god. You don't start believing in atheism, but
rather just stop believing in god.) So if you have to "try"
anarcho-capitalism, then it is already doomed to failure since it has
to be able to exist without anyone "trying" to do anything.
It has to be able to exist in the best case scenario where people are
more or less indifferent to the existence of government. But it also
has to be able to prevail in the face of "do-gooders" outthere that
want to create a government for our own good. It has to maintain
itself even though there will be attempts at corruption and crime on
every scale. You are saying that it can do all this and yet it cannot
prevail right now inthe context of there being a government (aka rogue
protective agency) with plenty of other private institutions that
could virtually replace the government. It cannot even prevail in the
context of a minimal government which would be an order of magnitude
more ideal than our current situation which is another order of
magnitude more ideal than a dictatorship.
We're supposed to think that it will work -- that it is stable -- yet
it is just ridiculous to expect it to work right now or when this
country was founded?
>> Except that anarchy is just one tiny step up what seems an inevitable
>> slope. Why is it that anarchy doesn't degenerate into a minimal
>> government for the same reasons a minimal government degenerates into
>> a tyranny?
>
>Friedman gives economic arguments showing that, once the anarcho-capitalist
>institutions were in place, it would be extremely difficult to establish a
>government.
He gives arguments defending this. Whether or not he shows it is
disputable.
> Essentially, it is almost impossible to establish a monopoly in
>a competitive marketplace, unless (a) one (already) has a government that
>one can lobby for special legislation, or (b) the market is a natural
>monopoly (a market in which the efficient provision of the service requires
>a single provider).
Friedman would not be the first to say this, but it is hardly relevant
to the matter of justice as a service ina market place. It is only
almost impossible to establish a monopoly in a *laissez faire* market
place. For instance, it would be quite easy to establish a monopoly
through the direct application of force in the absence of a
government. Consider the mob squeezing out the competition. It is
nto a case of the government creating the monopoly, since the force is
definitely illegitimate. But it acts in much the same way -- force is
used to deviate from laissez faire.
Anarcho-capitalism is hardly laissez faire when it comes to justice
services. I do not say that assuming that it wont work. I only say
that because it is true -- there is no way to guarantee that there
will not be plenty of force attempted by rogue protective agencies and
what not. There can be no legitimate force, perhaps, but there
certainly can be a strong digression from laissez faire. Indeed that
is the whole point of the excercise. When force is applied,
presumably (most of the time) one side is legit and the other is not.
This is all about how illegitimate force is handled. So, you cannot
rely on your familiar arguments about monopolies or what happens in a
laissez faire economy because the whole issue is over whether or not
it can be laissez faire and how the possibility of coercive deviations
from laissez faire are going to be handled.
> There are many historical cases showing that the
>establishment of a monopoly almost always requires government intervention.
Sure, always under the assumption that justice prevails or at least
that some sort of order exists.
>
>There is no reason to think the market for personal protection is a natural
>monopoly, and we are assuming a situation in which there is no government
>already. Thus, the establishment of such a government would be extremely
>difficult, for the standard economic reasons.
>
You simply cannot use standard economic arguments here because you
have all kinds of coerciveness taking place. How this coerciveness is
thwarted in anarchy is precisely what your burden of proof is in
showing that anarchy is possible. And as it stands, while monopolies
are quite rare in free markets, they can easily occur in unfree
markets, as is the case in anarcho-capitalism. This is not an
invitation for you to reassert that it will be a free market in
anarchy. It is a request for you to argue that even though there will
be attempts to make an unfree market place for justice services (as is
automatically the case when an issue of justice arises), the market
will somehow manage to remain free and then you can apply the standard
economic arguments.
You cannot start out with the assumption that the market is robust to
such intrusions by rogue agencies, criminals, etc. (e.g. "Supposing we
are already in a state of peaceful anarchy...") and then use the
standard economic arguments. That begs the question. In fact, it
probably begs the question to even start without a government, though
I'm willing to let that go for the sake of argument. The entire issue
people have with anarchists is over its practicability. So you have
to show not how monopolies don't form in a free market but how
substantial and constant deviations from a free market get corrected
without monopolies forming. In other words, you have to show how
injustice is naturally corrected.
>> On the other hand, if I am a city
>> boy from Chicago, it would be vry hard for me to just opt out of
>> interracting. How am I going to get my food? Where will I sleep? My
>> house is in the middle of a big city with lots of people all around.
>
>Etc.
>
>You seem to think that the anarchist idea is to have no interaction between
>people. This is not so.
>
I certainly do not seem to think that. I know good and well that it
is not, or at least it had better not be sicne that would trivialize
the position. I will concede that anarchy can occur inthe absence of
very much interaction as anyone will.
So, we cannot bring up Iceland, for instance, as a success story.
This is just such a case. You are talking about a land mass larger
than a state with less people on it than a city. (Or perhaps my
characterization is a bit contentious, but it was uncontentiously very
sparsely populated by anyones standards, in any case.) And even so,
it is highly disputable as to whether this is to be held as a success
story of *peaceful* coexistence. You can almost turn it all around to
argue that any denser of a population and you would have the total
chaos all us statists think will occur in anarchy.
You cannto bring up the Old West or rural areas where they ignore
laws. You can bring them up, but just not as if it refutes the
impossibility of anarchy.
>> So the issues that could make for crime and conflict
>> (including wars which strikes me as largely like crime on a grander
>> scale, but I imagine you must disagree with that characterization)
>
>Why would I disagree with that? That is the most insightful statement in
>your message.
If you do not disagree with that characterization, then that is
tantamount to saying that anarchy should prevail even with outside
invaders. Now, correct me if I am wrong, but my impression was that
one big argument often championed by anarchists is that while anarchy
is fully capable of handling internal conflict within a particular
society or culture, it has often fallen prey to outside invasion.
And, that is why we are not all living in anarchy right now -- because
there have always been outside invaders conquering peaceful, honest
people coexisting in relative harmony and order.
I was actually under the impression that war parties were widely held
by anarchists to be completely different from criminals or even small
gangs (though the boundary no doubt gets blurry at points).
>
>War is just mass murder, carried out by governments.
>
But if the government is special, then it is not the case that war is
just crime on a large scale. It seems that your position entails
1) anarchy can handle criminals
2) governments are different from mere bands of criminals
3) anarchy cannot handle governments
>> Where are the examples for this case? How does anarchy work in this
>> case? The examples seem to dry up pretty quickly. The ones I have
>
>The private protection agencies and arbitration agencies take over the
>functions of the state. As to examples, I stated earlier that the system
>hadn't really been tried. Therefore, I must ask again: Are you saying it
>should not be tried simply because it hasn't been tried so far?
>
I must say that if it takes a concerted effort to dismantle a
government, then that very much undermines the idea that governments
will not form naturally in anarchy or in other words that anarchy will
work. One very problematic issue with your position is that on the
one hand we have to try anarchy -- it just doesn't happen naturally
all on its own. On the other hand, we are supposed to believe that
when anarchy is "up and running" we wont have to try anymore, in fact,
it will be practically unstoppable!
>> If it is so economically efficient, then why isn't it
>> tried more and why doesn't it work more?
>
>Not everything that's good is actually done, and not everything that's done
>is good. Surely you've noticed that. A few hundred years ago, it might have
>been said that democracy had almost never been tried before ("And see how it
>failed! They were taken over by the Romans!") Does that mean it shouldn't
>have been tried? That it was a bad idea?
I doubt that. You have straightforward, unequivocal cases of
democracy even under the Romans. (I'm including republican forms of
government as "democracy" since otherwise democracy really did die
with the greeks if it even existed then.) You don't have this for
anarchy. You can go into great detail as to how they work and how
they ultimately collapsed.
But supposing that we rewind back to Ancient Greece when it was first
being considered, I think here you might have a point. Perhaps now we
are at the point in our history with anarchy that the Greeks were with
Democracy. Even still it is sort of a "crack-pot" idea just like
democracy was back then. There were lots of ideas that came and went
and it is real easy to pick a few good ones and argue how we have to
accept crack pot ideas. What we might have to do is not entirely
dismiss them, especially if they are reevant to something we are
intensely interested in, but that is not itself an argument to "try"
anarchy.
>
>> Because we're all used to
>> government??
>
>No doubt part of it is because most people share the same false beliefs that
>you do. They think their government is 'serving' them. Sadly, the facts are
>otherwise.
>
I never said that the government is "serving me". In fact, I think
you have to say that the government cannot or at least should not
serve any one person. Your false belief is that the role of
government consists of some sort of service.
>> Does that stop any other technological invention?
>
>Anarchy isn't a technological invention, but rather a social system.
>Changing an entire social system is generally very difficult and costly.
>
>
>
Then you admit that "justice services" aren't just another private
good in a market subject to standard economic arguments just like any
other service or good. Consider the textile industry. We do not
think that it is difficult and costly for there to be inventions and
innovations as to how cotton is grown, picked, processed and spun.
And indeed it happens. (And of course it is difficult and costly to
one extent or another -- just not prohibitively so.) Yet we do think
it is more costly than in any other industry that innovation with
respect to justice services be attempted. And just think, if justice
is a private good, the identification of it as such is just the very
very beginning -- it would be like discovering cotton for the very
first time. There would be centuries (or perhaps eons given the
difficulty and cost) of more advancement that would be where the
rubber really hit the road for this industry.
This would be like living in fields of cotton for hundreds of years
with only very labored examples of how someone might have been using
it for textiles once. I think this aspect of justice alone may be an
argument for whay it is not an industry and a private good for all
practical purposes.
David Friedman
adri...@hotmail.com (Adrian) wrote:
> The reason I say this is because
> anarcho-capitalism is not the kind of thing that "we" can "institute"
> or "try" or "establish". It has to either exist or not exist. It is
> the lack of any such institution or establishment.
I'm not sure what "such institution" means. Most versions of
anarcho-capitalism, certainly the one I have described, have
institutions. Those institutions have to be created, which is likely to
take time. Creating them is made more difficult by the fact that doing
some of the things they would do would result in the people doing them
being arrested.
It's a little as if someone said "I'm in favor of peace" and you replied
"you have peace. Be peaceful. Just ignore those people shooting at you."
> You simply cannot use standard economic arguments here because you
> have all kinds of coerciveness taking place.
We routinely use economic arguments to analyze crime and politics, both
of which involve lots of coercion.
> >So your solution is that you hope maybe people will altruistically devote
> >their time to constantly watching the government, although there will be no
> >incentives for them to do so.
>
> There's every incentive to do so. It's in their vested interests to
> carefully scrutinize their government in order to keep it in control.
I thought you said you were familiar with collective action problems.
--
David Friedman
www.daviddfriedman.com/
Scott Weiser
Indeed, and there's an important clue there. We choose not to live in
anarchy because we know that it's an unworkable, savage system where
the law of the jungle reigns and only the strong survive.
>
>>> >So far, you haven't given any argument for having government other than,
>>> >"Well, we've always had one, so it's inevitable."
>>>
>>> Given how easy it is not to have one, I would say that is not an
>>> unreasonable assumption. In fact, given that all we have to do is
>>> peacefully coexist and that this is supposedly so simple and common,
>>
>>No, we would also have to dismantle the existing state. I don't know why you
>>think this is so easy.
>
>What do you have to do to "dismantle" it? Just start ignoring it.
David Koresh and company tried that.
>
>>
>>Are you saying that we shouldn't try anarcho-capitalism because it hasn't
>>been done before? Is that your basic objection?
>>
>
>I'm saying that if you have to try anarcho-capitalism, then you have
>already assumed it cannot work.
Or, we *know* that it cannot work, by the use of reason and history,
so we don't care to bother with silly, juvenile experiments into
asinine and worthless social models that just get people killed and
victimized en masse.
> The reason I say this is because
>anarcho-capitalism is not the kind of thing that "we" can "institute"
>or "try" or "establish". It has to either exist or not exist.
And it does not exist because we are too intelligent to buy into the
ridiculous notion that people's happiness and safety could be
supported using such a model.
>It has to be able to exist in the best case scenario where people are
>more or less indifferent to the existence of government. But it also
>has to be able to prevail in the face of "do-gooders" outthere that
>want to create a government for our own good. It has to maintain
>itself even though there will be attempts at corruption and crime on
>every scale.
You forget that it also has to provide for the needs of the people in
the *worst case sceneario,* which it doesn't, which is why advocating
it is pure intellectual masturbation.
>We're supposed to think that it will work -- that it is stable -- yet
>it is just ridiculous to expect it to work right now or when this
>country was founded?
It's ridiculous to expect it to work *at all,* ever, under any
circumstances.
>
>>> Except that anarchy is just one tiny step up what seems an inevitable
>>> slope. Why is it that anarchy doesn't degenerate into a minimal
>>> government for the same reasons a minimal government degenerates into
>>> a tyranny?
>>
>>Friedman gives economic arguments showing that, once the anarcho-capitalist
>>institutions were in place, it would be extremely difficult to establish a
>>government.
>
>He gives arguments defending this. Whether or not he shows it is
>disputable.
And even if he proves it, that says nothing about the quality of the
lives of those living under anarcho-capitalism, which would be short,
brutish and nasty. That's the thing about economic arguments, they
don't give a fig for anything *but* economics.
>
>> Essentially, it is almost impossible to establish a monopoly in
>>a competitive marketplace, unless (a) one (already) has a government that
>>one can lobby for special legislation, or (b) the market is a natural
>>monopoly (a market in which the efficient provision of the service requires
>>a single provider).
>
>Friedman would not be the first to say this, but it is hardly relevant
>to the matter of justice as a service ina market place. It is only
>almost impossible to establish a monopoly in a *laissez faire* market
>place. For instance, it would be quite easy to establish a monopoly
>through the direct application of force in the absence of a
>government. Consider the mob squeezing out the competition. It is
>nto a case of the government creating the monopoly, since the force is
>definitely illegitimate. But it acts in much the same way -- force is
>used to deviate from laissez faire.
>
>Anarcho-capitalism is hardly laissez faire when it comes to justice
>services.
That's certainly an understatement.
> I do not say that assuming that it wont work. I only say
>that because it is true -- there is no way to guarantee that there
>will not be plenty of force attempted by rogue protective agencies and
>what not.
And I say that I can guarantee that there *will* be such force used,
as a matter of routine, until the strong rule the weak....in an
anarcho-capitalistic fashion, of course.
> There can be no legitimate force, perhaps, but there
>certainly can be a strong digression from laissez faire. Indeed that
>is the whole point of the excercise. When force is applied,
>presumably (most of the time) one side is legit and the other is not.
>This is all about how illegitimate force is handled.
Even more fundamentally, it's about how one *determines* which force
is "legitimate" and which is "illegitimate." Anarcho-capitalism, or
any form of anarchy, deny the premise for making such determinations
entirely, and thus the decision about the legitimacy of one or another
applications of force is solely determined by who prevails in the
conflict, ie: law of the jungle, survival of the fittest.
It is the rule of law which allows us to distinguish between rightful
and wrongful applications of force, and anarcho-capitalism denies the
rule of law.
> So, you cannot
>rely on your familiar arguments about monopolies or what happens in a
>laissez faire economy because the whole issue is over whether or not
>it can be laissez faire and how the possibility of coercive deviations
>from laissez faire are going to be handled.
Yup.
Nor is this *always* the case. War is *also* one group fighting
another in the *absence* of government, ie: Somalia, Sierra Leon,
Rawanda.
>
>1) anarchy can handle criminals
False assumption. Anarchy can only "handle" physically weaker
"criminals", and in fact, since there is no rule of law in anarchy,
there is no such thing as a "criminal", because anything one does to
survive, or to forward *one's own interests*, no matter what effect it
has on others, is acceptable, and indeed necessary in an anarchy. So,
anarchy "handles" criminals by defining them out of existence.
But anarchy does'nt define "victimization" out of existence, it just
dismisses victims as Darwinian dead-ends.
>2) governments are different from mere bands of criminals
At least most of the time.
>3) anarchy cannot handle governments
More than that, anarchy and government are *mutually exclusive
concepts.*
Paul Zrimsek
>I'm afraid you didn't follow his argument, possibly because you are less
>familiar with public good problems than you think.
Scott Weiser to Owl:
>>So your solution is that you hope maybe people will altruistically devote
>>their time to constantly watching the government, although there will be no
>>incentives for them to do so.
>
>There's every incentive to do so. It's in their vested interests to
>carefully scrutinize their government in order to keep it in control.
Chalk up one QED for Friedman.
Paul Zrimsek pzri...@earthlink.net
---------------------------------------------------------------
I like the police, I just feel better when they're not around.
-- Someone or other
Melissa Liberty
<3af71616....@news.dimensional.com>:
...
>>Every second of every day is abother oportunity for us all to just
>>live in anarchy. But the vast majority of us choose not to.
>
>Indeed, and there's an important clue there. We choose not to live in
>anarchy because we know that it's an unworkable, savage system where
>the law of the jungle reigns and only the strong survive.
And how would that be much different than now?
We've seen the results of the nanny state. We've learned that we can't
possibly feed an ever-increasing number of poor people in the world and few
people really want to try. We don't see Rosie O'Donnel spending her millions
to feed the poor. So how is the world much different from that now. Except
for a lot of lip service, that is.
Owl
> It just failed that badly. There are people out there that claim to
> be part of "the government". Why not ignore them? They have no
> legitimate authority over you.
Because they have more guns than I do.
If a robber comes into a bank with a machine gun and demands everyone's
money, why don't they just all ignore him? After all, he has no legitimate
authority.
When the Germans were holding the Jews in concentrations camps, starving
them, and eventually killing them, why didn't the Jews just all at once
attack the guards? They outnumbered the guards, surely. The guards would
have killed a few, but they probably couldn't have shot everyone before they
were overwhelmed. Why do you think it didn't happen? Think about this for a
while--you might learn from this example.
> I'm saying that if you have to try anarcho-capitalism, then you have
> already assumed it cannot work. The reason I say this is because
> anarcho-capitalism is not the kind of thing that "we" can "institute"
> or "try" or "establish". It has to either exist or not exist.
I really don't know what you mean by this. We can "try" it in the sense of
having such a society, and then seeing what happens. The fact that it
involves a negative (the dismantling of certain institutions) doesn't mean
it can't be tried.
> It has to be able to exist in the best case scenario where people are
> more or less indifferent to the existence of government.
The best case scenario is one where most people realize that government is
evil. In order to bring this about, we need to defend anarchy publicly --
for instance, in public newsgroups.
> every scale. You are saying that it can do all this and yet it cannot
> prevail right now inthe context of there being a government (aka rogue
See the point above about the guns.
> government. Consider the mob squeezing out the competition. It is
> nto a case of the government creating the monopoly, since the force is
> definitely illegitimate. But it acts in much the same way -- force is
> used to deviate from laissez faire.
Yes, but it has also been shown why a rogue protection agency would lose out
in competition with more peaceful protection agencies. Its costs would be
higher.
> Anarcho-capitalism is hardly laissez faire when it comes to justice
> services. I do not say that assuming that it wont work. I only say
> that because it is true -- there is no way to guarantee that there
> will not be plenty of force attempted by rogue protective agencies and
> what not.
There are economic arguments to explain why this wouldn't happen. True,
there are no *guarantees*, but then there are no guarantees that the
government won't decide to slaughter 50 million people either. The
difference is that in the case of government, the economic arguments suggest
that it will become more abusive over time.
> You simply cannot use standard economic arguments here because you
> have all kinds of coerciveness taking place.
Economic arguments work from the assumption that people by and large act in
their own interests, as they perceive them. This is generally true, whether
you are in an anarchy or a state.
> markets, as is the case in anarcho-capitalism. This is not an
> invitation for you to reassert that it will be a free market in
> anarchy. It is a request for you to argue that even though there will
> be attempts to make an unfree market place for justice services (as is
> automatically the case when an issue of justice arises), the market
> will somehow manage to remain free and then you can apply the standard
> economic arguments.
The basic argument was that an agency with policies of (a) protecting
criminals (in the usual sense of that term), or (b) fighting with other
agencies, would face skyrocketting costs, in contrast with more peaceful
agencies. Thus, it would lose the competition.
> work. One very problematic issue with your position is that on the
> one hand we have to try anarchy -- it just doesn't happen naturally
> all on its own. On the other hand, we are supposed to believe that
> when anarchy is "up and running" we wont have to try anymore, in fact,
> it will be practically unstoppable!
That's right, but I don't see what is problematic there.
> Then you admit that "justice services" aren't just another private
> good in a market subject to standard economic arguments just like any
> other service or good. Consider the textile industry. We do not
> think that it is difficult and costly for there to be inventions and
> innovations as to how cotton is grown, picked, processed and spun.
If there was already a cotton monopoly, however, it would be.
The problem is that the government presently has a 'protection monopoly'. If
that monopoly could be broken, it would be difficult to re-establish. But
while it lasts, it is very difficult to make any improvements in protection
services.
Another point you may be overlooking is that it is frequently very difficult
for inventors to get their new ideas adopted by an industry, even when the
ideas are objectively correct and enormously beneficial. They have to battle
against the opposition of the inevitable conservatives who say the ideas are
'crazy', can never work, or just aren't the way things are done. Sort of
like how I have to battle against you.
Adrian
wrote:
>In article <3ade6626...@news-server.nc.rr.com>,
> adri...@hotmail.com (Adrian) wrote:
>
>> The reason I say this is because
>> anarcho-capitalism is not the kind of thing that "we" can "institute"
>> or "try" or "establish". It has to either exist or not exist. It is
>> the lack of any such institution or establishment.
>
>I'm not sure what "such institution" means. Most versions of
>anarcho-capitalism, certainly the one I have described, have
>institutions. Those institutions have to be created, which is likely to
>take time. Creating them is made more difficult by the fact that doing
>some of the things they would do would result in the people doing them
>being arrested.
I am not saying that anarchy is the absence of institutions. I am
criticizing the idea that "we" are going to collectively all make an
effort to create them. If that is what is gong on then that sounds
like government.
The kind of anarchy you have described is specificallt supposed to be
an example fo spontaneous order. If not, then it really is no
different from government -- it is just another very deliberately and
consciously created order.
>
>It's a little as if someone said "I'm in favor of peace" and you replied
>"you have peace. Be peaceful. Just ignore those people shooting at you."
>
Not really. The major difference and appeal, I think, of anarchy is
similar to the difference between atheism and religions. You have all
sorts of religions out there with one kind of dogma or another, but
only atheism is the absense of religion. So if the idea is that
religion in general is what you want to get away from, then you cannto
go from one religion to another -- perhaps from a strict religion to a
more liberal one. You need to get rid of it altogether by becoming
atheist.
In a very analogous way, one might find anarchy very attractive as the
absence of government. But i we are to go this route, then we cannot
go back on it by saying that we have to all get together and do all
these different things, like dismatle the government or create private
institutions. It has to happen spontaneously, or else we are really
just going back to government to solve our problems.
In short, if anarchy solves so many problems, then why doesn't it
solve this problem of government for us? Only government action can
do that?
>> You simply cannot use standard economic arguments here because you
>> have all kinds of coerciveness taking place.
>
>We routinely use economic arguments to analyze crime and politics, both
>of which involve lots of coercion.
>
Okay, you cannot use *the* standard arguments against the formation of
*monopoly*.
>> >So your solution is that you hope maybe people will altruistically devote
>> >their time to constantly watching the government, although there will be no
>> >incentives for them to do so.
>>
>> There's every incentive to do so. It's in their vested interests to
>> carefully scrutinize their government in order to keep it in control.
>
>I thought you said you were familiar with collective action problems.
>
I don't think that's part of my post. If I did say that it was
somewhere else. I doubt I would say that, actually, and I don't
remember even talking about that. Either way, I think you have mixed
up your posts.
Adrian
I might point out that I am a libertarian, so a lot of your arguments
are lost on me. Providing for the downtrodden is not a proper role of
government and certainly not good measure of how well anarchy "works".
The role of government is in the establishment of the traditional
ideas of justice (e.g. not "social justice"). And the test of anarchy
is how well it does that.
But again I say to the anarchists, how much faith are we to have in
the ability for anarchy to do all this when it cannot handle the most
basic unjust intrusion (according to anarchists) into a society of
peaceful honest producers, namely when it cannot handle governments?
How is it going to handle the formation of new governments when it
cannot spontaneously emerge out of the current government? How will
we get all this order spontaneously when we have to start out by
deliberately setting it up?
Adrian
>"Adrian" <adri...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>news:3ade6626...@news-server.nc.rr.com...
>> It just failed that badly. There are people out there that claim to
>> be part of "the government". Why not ignore them? They have no
>> legitimate authority over you.
>
>Because they have more guns than I do.
You and apparently any of your protective agencies. But why does it
happen now, but not in anarchy?
>
>If a robber comes into a bank with a machine gun and demands everyone's
>money, why don't they just all ignore him? After all, he has no legitimate
>authority.
Hey I agree with you, but you turn around and make that argument to me
when it comes time for it to happen in anarchy. Or you say it won't
happen because by construction it is a peaceful anarchy.
>
>When the Germans were holding the Jews in concentrations camps, starving
>them, and eventually killing them, why didn't the Jews just all at once
>attack the guards? They outnumbered the guards, surely. The guards would
>have killed a few, but they probably couldn't have shot everyone before they
>were overwhelmed. Why do you think it didn't happen? Think about this for a
>while--you might learn from this example.
WOAH! I agree whole heartedly. Now think about it for a while in the
context of private protective agencies with a mildly large bully in
their midst that could defeat any one or two of its opponents but not
all 100 of them. Don't tell me that simply cannot happen. It happens
all the time in a normal market. The difference of course is that you
just go out of business or end up with a warehouse full of unsold
products or whatever. You personally don't have to die or being
crippled if you go against the bully, that is, unless we are talking
about "justice services". Only then is your life and limb at stake.
>
>> I'm saying that if you have to try anarcho-capitalism, then you have
>> already assumed it cannot work. The reason I say this is because
>> anarcho-capitalism is not the kind of thing that "we" can "institute"
>> or "try" or "establish". It has to either exist or not exist.
>
>I really don't know what you mean by this. We can "try" it in the sense of
>having such a society, and then seeing what happens. The fact that it
>involves a negative (the dismantling of certain institutions) doesn't mean
>it can't be tried.
>
But you aren't talking about it happening. You are talking about
"trying" it like we might try a direct democracy versus a republic.
In this latter case it all makes sense since we are all doing
something in either case of direct democracy or republic. But int he
case of anarchy we are all doing nothing (other than just acting
independently in our own self interests like we always do).
It is like saying "Well, I test drove a ferrari. Then, I test drove a
yugo. Now I think I'll test drive a no car at all." That is
something you just end up with, not something you have to make happen.
So, if we are talking abotu something we have to make happen, then we
aren't talking about no car at all.
Similarly, if we are talking about something that we have to make
happen, then we are not talking about the kind of *spontaneous* order
that is supposed to occur in anarchy.
>> It has to be able to exist in the best case scenario where people are
>> more or less indifferent to the existence of government.
>
>The best case scenario is one where most people realize that government is
>evil. In order to bring this about, we need to defend anarchy publicly --
>for instance, in public newsgroups.
>
Well, I have no problem with that, but I have trouble believing that
people are just brainwashed or habituated to government. I think
there is much more likely a very intuitive rejection of anarchy taking
place independently of the fact that they happen to have been raised
in a government.
In fact you see more people reject religions that are much more
ingrained into their daily lives than you see rejecting governments.
>> every scale. You are saying that it can do all this and yet it cannot
>> prevail right now inthe context of there being a government (aka rogue
>
>See the point above about the guns.
>
Apply the same point to the rogue protective agency in anarchy.
>> government. Consider the mob squeezing out the competition. It is
>> nto a case of the government creating the monopoly, since the force is
>> definitely illegitimate. But it acts in much the same way -- force is
>> used to deviate from laissez faire.
>
>Yes, but it has also been shown why a rogue protection agency would lose out
>in competition with more peaceful protection agencies. Its costs would be
>higher.
>
Well, that is assuming they lose. Why can't they just do what Hitler
did and create a self-sufficient force and expand outward conquering
the world? The truth is, if we have gotten this far, then we are
probably forcing the opposition to do something similar. So, even if
they are relatively weak compared to the rest of the world, the simple
fact that they even try this causes the rest of the world to start
doing to the same to oppose them becasue they are titans compared even
to the large protective agency at that point.
What compounds the problem is that it is more cost effective for us to
trade for clients closer to us. Suppose a simple example of my having
an agency with one building or base that I can deploy force from, and
you have the same. It is more cost effective for me to trade a client
near your base for a client of yours near my base. And even if the
clients don't want to trade, it is more cost effectvie for me to hire
out my protection services to you if you do the same to me or even if
others do the same to me and you refuse. This is what brings
geography into play -- the increasing cost of applying force at a
distance. And, it extends easily to the general case of several bases
or even roving bases for that matter. It is in their interests to
settle down and focus on an area, the closer to base the better.
So it is much more difficult and takes much more resources to break
into a geographic monopoly (lay siege to a castle perhaps) than to
maintain one. It certianly isn't impossible, but what about the
largest agency around that practically already has a monopoly in a
large contiguous area? They take all their resources and pull out of
the markets they were in to control a smaller monopoly. They close
their borders and raise their premiums or just subjugate their
populace to make a war machine. Now what was that you were saying
about why the Jews didn't rush the guards in Nazi Germany? Are you
going to say that all these smaller agencies are going to attack the
biggest one around? Maybe it is one of the larger ones that is way
far away and not immediately threatened by them that will put an end
to this rogue agency.
What is going to really have to happen is that it is going to run
amuck for awhile until once removed agencies start to form alliances
and form a combined assualt against the rogue or another large agency
somewhat removed sees the power building and decides it has to do the
same (perhaps with less subjugation and the justification that its
either us or the nazis). The former case happened in America (sort
of). And they ended up, largely against their own sensibilities, with
a united states government. It is not a far leap after a long war
with a foreign power causing the entire group of agencies and their
clients to have to band together. The rogue agency doesn't get
instantly stomped out for the same reaosn hitler was not instantly
stopped by all the countries surrounding him that could have before
Germany gained power.
This is the political history of man. And I find this empirically
much more indicated than a peaceful anarchy.
>> Anarcho-capitalism is hardly laissez faire when it comes to justice
>> services. I do not say that assuming that it wont work. I only say
>> that because it is true -- there is no way to guarantee that there
>> will not be plenty of force attempted by rogue protective agencies and
>> what not.
>
>There are economic arguments to explain why this wouldn't happen. True,
>there are no *guarantees*, but then there are no guarantees that the
>government won't decide to slaughter 50 million people either. The
>difference is that in the case of government, the economic arguments suggest
>that it will become more abusive over time.
>
>> You simply cannot use standard economic arguments here because you
>> have all kinds of coerciveness taking place.
>
>Economic arguments work from the assumption that people by and large act in
>their own interests, as they perceive them. This is generally true, whether
>you are in an anarchy or a state.
But the standard economic arguments against the formation of
monopolies in a free market rely on the freeness of the market which
is not what we have in the case of anarcho-capitalism. What we have
instead is a market, that the anarcho-capitalist has the burden of
showing will correct itself when it becomes unfree.
>
>> markets, as is the case in anarcho-capitalism. This is not an
>> invitation for you to reassert that it will be a free market in
>> anarchy. It is a request for you to argue that even though there will
>> be attempts to make an unfree market place for justice services (as is
>> automatically the case when an issue of justice arises), the market
>> will somehow manage to remain free and then you can apply the standard
>> economic arguments.
>
>The basic argument was that an agency with policies of (a) protecting
>criminals (in the usual sense of that term), or (b) fighting with other
>agencies, would face skyrocketting costs, in contrast with more peaceful
>agencies. Thus, it would lose the competition.
>
Well, that is a very simple argument. It doesn't actually address the
issue of a rogue agency. A rogue agency is not just a belligerent
group that insists on its idea of justice. A rogue agency is a group
that tries to gain power illegitimately. In this case, they do not
lose business because they are manuvering legitimately in the market
to get all their business as close together over the right region as
possible and when the moment is right they just go out and form a
perimeter and close off an area. Then the producers are trapped and
they start building the war machine. Hitler did this against
sanctions against it with a completely delapitated country when Nazi
germany came to power. Giving up its clients in other areas and
forcibly conquering the clients of other agencies (if they haven't
already moved) is not hard for an agency to do -- especially if it is
one of the biggern ones already.
>> work. One very problematic issue with your position is that on the
>> one hand we have to try anarchy -- it just doesn't happen naturally
>> all on its own. On the other hand, we are supposed to believe that
>> when anarchy is "up and running" we wont have to try anymore, in fact,
>> it will be practically unstoppable!
>
>That's right, but I don't see what is problematic there.
Spontaneous order that promotes justice in anarchy is so powerful, yet
it does not cause anarchy if even a weak state like the US after the
revolution exists.
>
>> Then you admit that "justice services" aren't just another private
>> good in a market subject to standard economic arguments just like any
>> other service or good. Consider the textile industry. We do not
>> think that it is difficult and costly for there to be inventions and
>> innovations as to how cotton is grown, picked, processed and spun.
>
>If there was already a cotton monopoly, however, it would be.
Au contraire. The market is much stronger than that. IF there is a
free market, then even a cotton monopoly will have to be competitive
to prevent other cotton producers from spontaneously spriniging up.
This is why monopolies don't occur in a laissez faire economy and if
they do it is a nice monopoly in the sense that it is still very much
under market forces to produce (in fact more than ever if it wants to
saty a monopoly). This argument completely fails for
anarcho-capitalism because the justice market is not only not a free
market by construction, but the issue of monopoly is the very issue of
a concentration of physical power that is held to be the real cause of
bad monopolies in an unfree market.
So if anything, the very reason monopolies require governments usually
to exist is the same reason a monopoly on force will result from
anarchy (due to the nature of force and the fact that it is by its
nature an unfree market).
>
>The problem is that the government presently has a 'protection monopoly'. If
>that monopoly could be broken, it would be difficult to re-establish. But
>while it lasts, it is very difficult to make any improvements in protection
>services.
I don't think that is as true as you make it out to be, especially if
the government is so inept at justice services just like it is with
everything else. Then, for the same reason that other producers
spring up out of nowhere in any other industry, protection agencies
should spring up. And they do. But what doesn't happen like in other
industries is those other agencies never dominate and are always
acting subordinately to the dominate power -- the government.
So why is that? It isn't because there is an even bigger government
forcing this monopoly, or if there is then lets just cut to the chase
and talk about the largest government and the private security,
arbitration, and other agencies that peacefully do business in its
territories. Why don't they just spontaneously replace the
government. We've had them for years. In any other industry, the
monopoly would have been broken a long, long time ago.
>
>Another point you may be overlooking is that it is frequently very difficult
>for inventors to get their new ideas adopted by an industry, even when the
>ideas are objectively correct and enormously beneficial. They have to battle
>against the opposition of the inevitable conservatives who say the ideas are
>'crazy', can never work, or just aren't the way things are done. Sort of
>like how I have to battle against you.
There is certainly a cost for R&D. And some times it doesn't even pan
out at all, so that there is a risk of a large cost for no benefit.
But that doesn't stop it from happening in any other industry. Why is
it shut completely down in a government?
Paul T. Ireland
only the powers enumerated in the constitution. The states only have those
powers granted to them by the people. The people retain all rights
enumerated or not in the constitution unless they allow states to write laws
limiting or regulating specific rights.
David Friedman
adri...@hotmail.com (Adrian) wrote:
> >I thought you said you were familiar with collective action problems.
> >
>
> I don't think that's part of my post. If I did say that it was
> somewhere else. I doubt I would say that, actually, and I don't
> remember even talking about that. Either way, I think you have mixed
> up your posts.
Probably. If so, sorry.
--
David Friedman
www.daviddfriedman.com/
Scott Weiser
(Melissa Liberty) wrote:
>wei...@private.altnews.com (Scott Weiser) wrote in
><3af71616....@news.dimensional.com>:
>...
>>>Every second of every day is abother oportunity for us all to just
>>>live in anarchy. But the vast majority of us choose not to.
>>
>>Indeed, and there's an important clue there. We choose not to live in
>>anarchy because we know that it's an unworkable, savage system where
>>the law of the jungle reigns and only the strong survive.
>
>And how would that be much different than now?
If you need to be told, then you're incapable of understanding.
>
>We've seen the results of the nanny state. We've learned that we can't
>possibly feed an ever-increasing number of poor people in the world and few
>people really want to try. We don't see Rosie O'Donnel spending her millions
>to feed the poor. So how is the world much different from that now. Except
>for a lot of lip service, that is.
Can you say "Mongol Horde?"
Scott Weiser
>
>I might point out that I am a libertarian, so a lot of your arguments
>are lost on me. Providing for the downtrodden is not a proper role of
>government
Why not? Government is merely the administrative arm of the public
will, and if the public will is to provide for the downtrodden, who
are YOU to say it cannot do so?
George Weinberg
>But again I say to the anarchists, how much faith are we to have in
>the ability for anarchy to do all this when it cannot handle the most
>basic unjust intrusion (according to anarchists) into a society of
>peaceful honest producers, namely when it cannot handle governments?
The "how to get there" problem is a very real one for anarchists,
but I don't think that that's a very strong argument that you wouldn't
want to get there if you theoretically could. It seems to me that
it's vastly harder to get rid of an enormous entrenched government
that provides all sorts of services that people really do like and
have never gotten from anything other than a government than
it would be to prevent coercive "service providers" in a society where
people are used to getting those services noncoercively.
>How is it going to handle the formation of new governments when it
>cannot spontaneously emerge out of the current government? How will
>we get all this order spontaneously when we have to start out by
>deliberately setting it up?
I just don't think this is a good argument. People largely accept the
idea that things ought to be the way they are. It's basically
a historical accident that we have a government run post office but
a private phone system. It's a historical accident that UL is private
but the FDA is government. Anything government might do, it's quite
possible that people will see it as reasonable, perhaps even
inevitable, that government will do that, if that's the way they're
used
to it being, but might consider it completely unreasonable for
government to do it if it's been working fine without government.
It's quite conceiveable that a stable anarchy is theoretically
workable except that it's imposible to
get to the initial state.
George
Scott Weiser
Weinberg) wrote:
>On Thu, 19 Apr 2001 22:35:33 GMT, adri...@hotmail.com (Adrian) wrote:
>
>
>>But again I say to the anarchists, how much faith are we to have in
>>the ability for anarchy to do all this when it cannot handle the most
>>basic unjust intrusion (according to anarchists) into a society of
>>peaceful honest producers, namely when it cannot handle governments?
>
>The "how to get there" problem is a very real one for anarchists,
Getting there is much easier than you might think. Just destroy the
current government and rule of law, and there is anarchy. Rawanda is
a fine example.
>but I don't think that that's a very strong argument that you wouldn't
>want to get there if you theoretically could.
Experientially, it's an extremely strong argument, because life in an
anarchy is nasty, short and brutish for the vast majority of people,
including more than a million Rawandans.
> It seems to me that
>it's vastly harder to get rid of an enormous entrenched government
>that provides all sorts of services that people really do like and
>have never gotten from anything other than a government than
>it would be to prevent coercive "service providers" in a society where
>people are used to getting those services noncoercively.
It's only harder (thank god) until anarchy reigns. Then people die in
droves, killed by those "coercive service providers," and it become
extremely difficult to bring sanity and peace back to the society.
>
>>How is it going to handle the formation of new governments when it
>>cannot spontaneously emerge out of the current government? How will
>>we get all this order spontaneously when we have to start out by
>>deliberately setting it up?
>
>I just don't think this is a good argument. People largely accept the
>idea that things ought to be the way they are. It's basically
>a historical accident that we have a government run post office but
>a private phone system. It's a historical accident that UL is private
>but the FDA is government. Anything government might do, it's quite
>possible that people will see it as reasonable, perhaps even
>inevitable, that government will do that, if that's the way they're
>used
>to it being, but might consider it completely unreasonable for
>government to do it if it's been working fine without government.
It's not an accident at all. We have a government post office because
the post evolved *from* a private courier operation in medieval times
*into* a government-operated monopoly in England, which was imported
here and adopted because it's a useful service provided by government
that had not, historically, been properly provided by private
enterprise.
The phone company began as private enterprise in the US, and was then
tightly regulated as a public monopoly for a very long time because of
severe problems which resulted from incompatible competition in
providing service, and is only now being "deregulated" again. The only
reason it's being "deregulated" (which is a misnomer, because it's
still under tight government control) is because the infrastructure
has matured to the point that compatibility is inherently necessary
between competing service providers. Many countries still have
government-operated phone systems because that is the only way service
can be provided to a large segement of the population, mostly due to
economic conditions.
The FDA is a public regulatory agency tasked with ensuring food and
drug safety and purity, which is something only a government agency
can do on a nationwide, or in this case, worldwide basis. Countries
without such agencies continue to have severe problems with
contaminated food and bad drugs which injure and kill millions of
people every year.
The UL is a private testing organization which has no legal power or
authority. It's recommendations are widely accepted by government
*regulatory* agencies as *advisory* only because it has demonstrated
careful attention to detail and an ability to be (so far) uncorrupted
by industry. But the *regulations* about products and devices which
consumers use do NOT use only the UL as a reference. In fact, if you
look at the NEC, you'll find that the engineering standards which
electrical devices must meet do not say "must be UL listed." Rather,
they reference a specific section in the NEMA or other engineering
specification code which describes in detail how such devices are
constructed.
It's backwards to make the presumption that you do that
government-operated services just sprang spontaneously into being.
They didn't. They evolved to meet a public need that was not being
properly served by private industry,and in many cases because only a
government operated service can adequately provide service to all the
people.
California is a prime example of why electrical service must continue
to be a closely regulated government monopoly. It is more important
that the lights stay on than for some mega-corporations to make even
more money...or try to.
>It's quite conceiveable that a stable anarchy is theoretically
>workable except that it's imposible to
>get to the initial state.
It's entirely *inconceivable* that anarchy can ever exist as a stable
social model. This is demonstrated by the historical fact that
wherever anarchy has reigned (like Somalia or Rawanda), after the orgy
of violence and killing, the *first* thing the people of the nation
try to do is institute a new government. This is because anarchy is a
universally bad idea for humans who have to live together.
Melissa Liberty
>On Thu, 19 Apr 2001 18:38:57 GMT, Melissa...@NO-PRIVATE.org
>(Melissa Liberty) wrote:
>
>>wei...@private.altnews.com (Scott Weiser) wrote in
>><3af71616....@news.dimensional.com>:
>>...
>>>>Every second of every day is abother oportunity for us all to just
>>>>live in anarchy. But the vast majority of us choose not to.
>>>
>>>Indeed, and there's an important clue there. We choose not to live in
>>>anarchy because we know that it's an unworkable, savage system where
>>>the law of the jungle reigns and only the strong survive.
>>
>>And how would that be much different than now?
>
>If you need to be told, then you're incapable of understanding.
And you're the one who doesn't like people doing ad hominems on you?
Why don't you just say it openly and call me stupid instead of merely
implying it?
>>We've seen the results of the nanny state. We've learned that we can't
>>possibly feed an ever-increasing number of poor people in the world and
>>few people really want to try. We don't see Rosie O'Donnel spending her
>>millions to feed the poor. So how is the world much different from that
>>now. Except for a lot of lip service, that is.
>
>Can you say "Mongol Horde?"
Is that like Janet Reno?
--
- Melissa in Colorado
Seeking new career, mentorship and full time job - west side
of Denver. http://www.dimensional.com/~melissa/resume.htm
"A Bill Of Rights is what the people are entitled to against every
derecho
sw> California is a prime example of why electrical service must continue to
be a closely regulated government monopoly. It is more important that the
lights stay on than for some mega-corporations to make even more money...or
try to.
I wonder how innovation occurs without the spur of competition.
I argue that CA is an example of why energy is too important to be left to the
State. Cogitate on that before you reply. A series of articles in the 10 Feb
2001 "The Economist" details my argument. I can send you an email copy if you
don't want to dig it up.
The mess in CA is *because* of State meddling.
I read in the Colorado LP newsletter that some official in Colbran is a member
of the LP. Be careful, we're creeping up on you!
--
der...@dimensional.com
Melissa Liberty
>On Thu, 19 Apr 2001 22:35:33 GMT, adri...@hotmail.com (Adrian) wrote:
>
>>
>>I might point out that I am a libertarian, so a lot of your arguments
>>are lost on me. Providing for the downtrodden is not a proper role of
>>government
>
>Why not? Government is merely the administrative arm of the public
>will, ...
You're truly a delusional guy Scott, if you really believe that. Man, they
must have implanted a Big Brother chip in your brain, for you to actually
believe such crap.
John A. Stovall
(Melissa Liberty) wrote:
No, a "Mongol Horde" is more civilized than her and her jackbooted
thugs.
*****************************************************
That's true. I ain't promising you nothing extra.
I'm just giving you life and you're giving me life.
And I'm saying that men can live together without
butchering one another.
"The Outlaw Josey Wales"
Spoken by Josey Wales
Scott Weiser
(Melissa Liberty) wrote:
>wei...@private.altnews.com (Scott Weiser) wrote in
><3ae0d0b7...@news.dimensional.com>:
>
>>On Thu, 19 Apr 2001 18:38:57 GMT, Melissa...@NO-PRIVATE.org
>>(Melissa Liberty) wrote:
>>
>>>wei...@private.altnews.com (Scott Weiser) wrote in
>>><3af71616....@news.dimensional.com>:
>>>...
>>>>>Every second of every day is abother oportunity for us all to just
>>>>>live in anarchy. But the vast majority of us choose not to.
>>>>
>>>>Indeed, and there's an important clue there. We choose not to live in
>>>>anarchy because we know that it's an unworkable, savage system where
>>>>the law of the jungle reigns and only the strong survive.
>>>
>>>And how would that be much different than now?
>>
>>If you need to be told, then you're incapable of understanding.
>
>And you're the one who doesn't like people doing ad hominems on you?
You started it.
>Why don't you just say it openly and call me stupid instead of merely
>implying it?
Because I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt.
>
>>>We've seen the results of the nanny state. We've learned that we can't
>>>possibly feed an ever-increasing number of poor people in the world and
>>>few people really want to try. We don't see Rosie O'Donnel spending her
>>>millions to feed the poor. So how is the world much different from that
>>>now. Except for a lot of lip service, that is.
>>
>>Can you say "Mongol Horde?"
>
>Is that like Janet Reno?
No.
Scott Weiser
wrote:
>sw> Scott Weiser
>
>sw> California is a prime example of why electrical service must continue to
>be a closely regulated government monopoly. It is more important that the
>lights stay on than for some mega-corporations to make even more money...or
>try to.
>
>I wonder how innovation occurs without the spur of competition.
How much innovation is required to pump electricity into the grid?
In any event, the innovation comes from suppliers of the equipment
competing for contracts to build more efficient power plants and
infrastructure. What I'm talking about is *operating* the grid.
>
>I argue that CA is an example of why energy is too important to be left to the
>State. Cogitate on that before you reply. A series of articles in the 10 Feb
>2001 "The Economist" details my argument. I can send you an email copy if you
>don't want to dig it up.
>
>The mess in CA is *because* of State meddling.
No, it's because the companies who advocated deregulation were hoist
on their own petard when they didn't get absolute control of the grid,
which is what they wanted. Had they succeeded, the lights might be on,
but only for those rich enough to pay the bill, which would have been
even higher with deregulation.
You see, libertarians erroneously think that "competition" is the
utopian ideal. Problem is, competition is only effective at keeping
prices down when there is *enough* competition in the marketplace to
avoid price fixing.
There are very few companies which have the capital or expertise to
run a power company, so when the utility was deregulated to allow for
"competition," which was supposed to drive rates *down*, what actually
happened is that a few mega-companies bought up the systems and then
didn't "compete" with each other.
After all, how can you "compete" for electricity? There's only ONE
grid. For consumers to benefit from electrical production
competition, there would have to be dozens, or hundreds of independent
power generating systems and grids. When you buy a car, you can visit
10 dealers in the same city, who have to compete against each other
for the customer. But with electricity, there is no "competition" at
all. I cannot go and buy electricity for my home from the Three Mile
Island power plant, I have to buy it from Excel.
And the bureaucratic horrors of "wheeling" power, to allow consumers
to select suppliers who may not even be generating power in the state,
are beyond imagining. Do you really think the folks out in
Burlington...or anybody else for that matter, would have their power
back on right now after the snowstorm knocked down hundreds of poles
and dropped miles of wire if there were *fifty* different power
companies in Colorado, each one with their own duplicate grid,
duplicate maintenance staff, etc.?
And even this idea of "collectivizing" the grid so that some dam owner
in Oregon can sell power to someone here in Colorado is an even bigger
bureaucratic nightmare of regulation and endless bickering between
those who built the grid infrastructure (and who want to pay their
shareholders a dividend) and those who want to "freeload" on the
system someone else built. Libertarians ought to be horrified at the
idea of forcing the grid-constructors to carry electricity for some
other company.
Competition is simply not reasonable, prudent or possible with the
electrical system, or the sewer system, or the highway system, and
even the local phone system. Long distance is another matter, but
again, when there's one set of wires going into the house for phone
service, you're stuck with whomever owns the network, which should be
the people themselves...or at least the private owner should be
heavily regulated as a monopoly. The biggest mistake we made in
telecommunications was the breakup of the Bell System.
There are simply some things which cannot be properly managed for the
public welfare by private industry. Not many, but there are a few.
>I read in the Colorado LP newsletter that some official in Colbran is a member
>of the LP. Be careful, we're creeping up on you!
You can try, but I've got a dandy new thermal sight that's *very*
hard to evade, not to mention my passive seismic sensor system and NV
gear....
Creep away, you just make it more interesting...
Scott Weiser
(Melissa Liberty) wrote:
>wei...@private.altnews.com (Scott Weiser) wrote in
><3aead90a...@news.dimensional.com>:
>
>>On Thu, 19 Apr 2001 22:35:33 GMT, adri...@hotmail.com (Adrian) wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>I might point out that I am a libertarian, so a lot of your arguments
>>>are lost on me. Providing for the downtrodden is not a proper role of
>>>government
>>
>>Why not? Government is merely the administrative arm of the public
>>will, ...
>
>You're truly a delusional guy Scott, if you really believe that. Man, they
>must have implanted a Big Brother chip in your brain, for you to actually
>believe such crap.
A more clear manifestation of paranoia from you I've yet to see.
Get help.
Melissa Liberty
<7401et496bnostrkb...@4ax.com>:
...
>>>>We've seen the results of the nanny state. We've learned that we can't
>>>>possibly feed an ever-increasing number of poor people in the world and
>>>>few people really want to try. We don't see Rosie O'Donnel spending her
>>>>millions to feed the poor. So how is the world much different from that
>>>>now. Except for a lot of lip service, that is.
>>>
>>>Can you say "Mongol Horde?"
>>
>>Is that like Janet Reno?
>
>No, a "Mongol Horde" is more civilized than her and her jackbooted
>thugs.
Scott should work as a tax collector, he sounds like he'd make a great jack
booted thug for Big Brother.
Owl
> But again I say to the anarchists, how much faith are we to have in
> the ability for anarchy to do all this when it cannot handle the most
> basic unjust intrusion (according to anarchists) into a society of
> peaceful honest producers, namely when it cannot handle governments?
> How is it going to handle the formation of new governments when it
> cannot spontaneously emerge out of the current government? How will
> we get all this order spontaneously when we have to start out by
> deliberately setting it up?
This is like arguing that a free market in mail service can't work, because
such a system has not arisen in the face of the US Post Office.
Actually, you seem to be arguing that anarchy can't work because we don't so
far have it.
Owl
> >Because they have more guns than I do.
>
> You and apparently any of your protective agencies. But why does it
> happen now, but not in anarchy?
What, that the government has more guns than anyone else? That's almost the
definition of "government"--when you have a single, dominant coercive power.
If you have multiple different competing powers, then it isn't 'government'
any more.
Do you think it is inherently impossible to have multiple competing powers?
Why would that be?
> WOAH! I agree whole heartedly. Now think about it for a while in the
> context of private protective agencies with a mildly large bully in
> their midst that could defeat any one or two of its opponents but not
> all 100 of them. Don't tell me that simply cannot happen. It happens
> all the time in a normal market.
Really, you should read Friedman's book. The Machinery of Freedom. Order it
online someplace. "It" doesn't happen all the time--in a free market,
monopolies almost never happen. As I mentioned last time, the warlike agency
would face higher costs than any of the peaceful agencies. Plus, it would
have a hard time convincing its employees of the need to attack other
agencies.
> Well, that is assuming they lose.
No, war is costly. People get injured or killed, property gets destroyed.
Because we won World War II doesn't mean it didn't cost us anything!
> Why can't they just do what Hitler
> did and create a self-sufficient force and expand outward conquering
> the world?
I'm not really sure what you mean here by "self-sufficient", and Hitler
didn't conquer the world. He sure caused a lot of trouble. But given the
differences between governments and businesses, and between government
leaders and business leaders, wouldn't you say it is much more likely that a
government leader tries to take over the world than that a business leader
does so?
> What compounds the problem is that it is more cost effective for us to
> trade for clients closer to us. Suppose a simple example of my having
> an agency with one building or base that I can deploy force from, and
> you have the same. It is more cost effective for me to trade a client
> near your base for a client of yours near my base.
You can look at existing security guard companies. They don't have
territorial monopolies on the basis that they 'trade customers' as you say.
Pizza delivery companies don't have territorial monopolies on the grounds
that they trade customers, either. Each just serves the customers who come
to them.
> or even roving bases for that matter. It is in their interests to
> settle down and focus on an area, the closer to base the better.
Presumably, most security agencies would focus on a limited area, just as is
the case with most companies. Nothing about that implies a monopoly.
> So it is much more difficult and takes much more resources to break
> into a geographic monopoly (lay siege to a castle perhaps) than to
> maintain one.
Yes, and that is why if you have a government, it is difficult to get rid of
it. However, to establish a monopoly, starting from a competitive situation,
you would first have to destroy the other operators in the area.
> It certianly isn't impossible, but what about the
> largest agency around that practically already has a monopoly in a
> large contiguous area?
That would make them pretty close to a government.
> They take all their resources and pull out of
> the markets they were in to control a smaller monopoly. They close
> their borders and raise their premiums or just subjugate their
> populace to make a war machine.
... at which point "their" customers move to the nearby territory with the
nice agencies, and they don't have any income any more.
But that doesn't happen in the first place, because they never have a
monopoly to begin with. Therefore, they can't "pull out of the markets ...
to control a smaller monopoly."
> Now what was that you were saying
> about why the Jews didn't rush the guards in Nazi Germany? Are you
> going to say that all these smaller agencies are going to attack the
> biggest one around?
No, *it* has to attack them, in order to get the monopoly or near-monopoly
you are hypothesizing to begin with. And how does that happen? At the next
shareholder's meeting, one of the executives at Tannahelp Security says, "I
say we issue a memo to our employees telling them to shoot members of Dawn
Defense Agency on sight"? Everyone agrees it's a good idea, so they issue
the memo. Imagine that you work for Tannahelp at this time. What would you
do? (Answer honestly.) Now imagine that you work for Dawn, and one day a few
wackos from Tannahelp start shooting at you and your partner. What would you
do? Third question. Now imagine that you are a customer, trying to decide
between subscribing to Tannahelp, Dawn, or a third company, Murbard, Ltd.,
which is not involved in the conflict. What do you do?
Now, you really, really need to read David Friedman's book. Chapters 29-30.
> that tries to gain power illegitimately. In this case, they do not
> lose business because they are manuvering legitimately in the market
> to get all their business as close together over the right region as
> possible
So they refuse customers who live outside that region? And they somehow
convince all the customers in that region to use them, or they convince all
other agencies operating in that region to refuse all customers?
I can't think of any real cases in which a company refuses customers or
'trades customers' with other companies.
> So why is that? It isn't because there is an even bigger government
> forcing this monopoly, or if there is then lets just cut to the chase
> and talk about the largest government and the private security,
> arbitration, and other agencies that peacefully do business in its
> territories. Why don't they just spontaneously replace the
> government.
Well, it seems pretty clear what the reason is for that. Try doing it. As
soon as you get started, you'll have government agents on your door to
arrest you. You can fight against them, but you'll probably lose. I don't
see how this shows that anarchy isn't good.
> There is certainly a cost for R&D. And some times it doesn't even pan
> out at all, so that there is a risk of a large cost for no benefit.
> But that doesn't stop it from happening in any other industry. Why is
> it shut completely down in a government?
The ideas of anarcho-capitalism were only developed in about the 1970s, and
few people have yet accepted them.
I can imagine you interviewing Tesla about his crazy AC power idea. He's
been trying to sell it for a few years, with no takers yet. You say, "In
industry, good ideas are adopted. So why hasn't yours been adopted?
Apparently, it's not good. Thus, I will not accept it."
Owl
news:bx%D6.961$el5....@wormhole.dimensional.com...
>
> And you're the one who doesn't like people doing ad hominems on you?
> Why don't you just say it openly and call me stupid instead of merely
> implying it?
Let me paraphrase Scott's reply for you:
Oh yeah? That's what YOU think.
John A. Stovall
>"Adrian" <adri...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>news:3adf6557...@news-server.nc.rr.com...
>> But again I say to the anarchists, how much faith are we to have in
>> the ability for anarchy to do all this when it cannot handle the most
>> basic unjust intrusion (according to anarchists) into a society of
>> peaceful honest producers, namely when it cannot handle governments?
>> How is it going to handle the formation of new governments when it
>> cannot spontaneously emerge out of the current government? How will
>> we get all this order spontaneously when we have to start out by
>> deliberately setting it up?
>
>This is like arguing that a free market in mail service can't work, because
>such a system has not arisen in the face of the US Post Office.
But in Europe Thurn und Taxis operated a very successful private
postal service up until the 19th century.
60% to 80% of the mail in Guatemala is handled by private mail
companies.
Private mail companies did compete with the US Postal Office in this
country until they were forced out by the postal reform acts starting
in 1845.
A good short history of private postal companies in the U.S. and the
forces which drove them out of business can be found at:
http://www.cato.org/pubs/journal/cj15n1-1.html
Did you know the prepayment with stamps for mail started in the U.S.
with private postal services?
>
>Actually, you seem to be arguing that anarchy can't work because we don't so
>far have it.
>
>
>
>
*****************************************************
"A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little
minds, adored by little statesmen and philosophers
and divines."
"Self Reliance"
Ralph Waldo Emerson
John A. Stovall
snipped
>
>Now, you really, really need to read David Friedman's book. Chapters 29-30.
He can find Chapter 29 online at:
http://www.daviddfriedman.com/Libertarian/Machinery_of_Freedom/MofF_Chapter_29.html
Marcus S. Turner
> On Fri, 20 Apr 2001 23:52:14 -0600, "Owl" <a@a.a> wrote:
>
> >"Adrian" <adri...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> >news:3adf6557...@news-server.nc.rr.com...
> >> But again I say to the anarchists, how much faith are we to have in
> >> the ability for anarchy to do all this when it cannot handle the most
> >> basic unjust intrusion (according to anarchists) into a society of
> >> peaceful honest producers, namely when it cannot handle governments?
> >> How is it going to handle the formation of new governments when it
> >> cannot spontaneously emerge out of the current government? How will
> >> we get all this order spontaneously when we have to start out by
> >> deliberately setting it up?
> >
> >This is like arguing that a free market in mail service can't work,
because
> >such a system has not arisen in the face of the US Post Office.
FedEx and UPS are certainly making a counterargument to that...
George Weinberg
<b...@wiredinvestor.com> wrote:
>On Sat, 21 Apr 2001 15:30:03 -0400, "Marcus S. Turner"
><msha...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
>
>>> >This is like arguing that a free market in mail service can't work,
>>because
>>> >such a system has not arisen in the face of the US Post Office.
>>
>>FedEx and UPS are certainly making a counterargument to that...
>
>Yeah right. 10 bucks plus to deliver a letter vs. 34 cents.
>
Not to mention that it's illegal to send a normal letter by
UPS or FedEx. Oh, wait, that's why there's a cost difference.
George
Jackson Harvey
> Yeah right. 10 bucks plus to deliver a letter vs. 34 cents.
Of course. It is illegal for anyone except the USPS to deliver mail as
they define mail. Since FedEx is not allowed to deliver mail, they are
certainly not viable as competition to the USPS.
Jackson Harvey
Jackson Harvey
> Cite please.
I don't have it on hand. I'm sure anyone who is interested could find
it; perhaps that person can post it.
Jackson Harvey
"moderate" Libertarian
Paul Lyons
William Peterson <b...@wiredinvestor.com> wrote in message
news:9a24etk06t5qgp5aq...@4ax.com...
18 USC Sec. 1696
Melissa Liberty
So now we still have the Big Brother monopoly, they just raised postage again
and now they want to stop Saturday delivery to boot. It should be privatized
immediately, if not sooner.
Melissa Liberty
<sclE6.7347$rk3.2...@news1.atl>:
They aren't allowed to deliver regular mail though.
Matt Telles
> On Sat, 21 Apr 2001 17:49:00 -0500, Jackson Harvey
> <harv...@tc.umn.edu> wrote:
>
> >William Peterson wrote:
>
> >>> Of course. It is illegal for anyone except the USPS to deliver mail
as
> >>> they define mail. Since FedEx is not allowed to deliver mail, they
are
> >>> certainly not viable as competition to the USPS.
> >>
> >>
> >> Cite please.
> >
> >I don't have it on hand. I'm sure anyone who is interested could find
> >it; perhaps that person can post it.
>
I believe what he's thinking of is that it is illegal for anyone not with
the USPS
to deposit mail in a mailbox. That's not really true either, but it IS the
law.
Matt
Adrian
with consciousness. It can have no will of its own. So all there
actually is is several conflicting individual wills. In fact, the
final resolution in a situation of democracy is very often a
compromise that no one particularly wants but rather simply tolerates.
Even if it reflected what the majority wnated, that wouldn't mean that
it was consistent with any possible notion of justice.
Adrian
an indictment of the natural force of spontaneous order that is
supposed to make anarchy peaceful and orderly in the absence of a
government. Actually what I woulg say is that spontaneous order does
occur out of anarchy -- a government forms.
Okay, basically, everyone will want to get to a state where we all
just naturally coexist peacefully with unparalleled prosperity in
society. The issue people take with what anarchists propose is that
they think that it is absurd that it would ever work out naturally
like that. So the whole burden of proof for anarchists is showing why
there is no good reason to think that it won't work and that there is
every good reason to think that governments always fail. If you are
arguing with a minimal statist, then we all agree on the basic ideas
of what the proper role of politics in society is. We all come pretty
close to the same conclusion abotu what constitutes justice.
So, the argument is not over what the minarchist thinks the state
ought to provide society that the anarchist doesn't think anyone has a
particular right to. The argument is entirely over how minarchy is
the wrong choice for our mutually agreed upon ends and anarchy is the
right choice. The anarchist response is basically that minarchy
degenerates into a large oppressive state while anarchy does not.
There are supposedly all these powerful forces in anarchy that keep it
from degenerating into a state. But the forces in anarchy are not the
force of anarchists, rather they are just natural forces that
anarchists and statists alike are all under. It is the economic
forces that cause spontaneous order that are supposed to cause anarchy
to remain stable. Yet these same forces exist under a state, and they
do not cause the disintegration of the state. Instead if we opt for
minarchy, these forces will cause it to become a big government --
they'll do just the opposite.
That is the contention of anrcho-capitalists, and why I am disputing
it. The same forces that produce order in anarchy without a
government and even block governments in such a context actually make
for more government in a minarchy, according to the anarchists. How
is that? In anarchy as soon as someone sets up the forces of
government (which could be any criminal behavior that breaks the
peaceful order of anarchy according to how anarchists view
government), you would think that more government forces would be
created until you get a minarchy and then take it from there. Why
would it have to get to the point that we would start calling it "a
government" or "a state" that it starts to degenerate into a
government?
On Fri, 20 Apr 2001 17:00:13 GMT, geor...@speakeasy.net (George
Weinberg) wrote:
Adrian
around your contention that spontaneous order will prevail in such a
way as to block the spontaneous formation of governments (as we have
practically always seen in the past). In fact, that is just one of
the many things the kind of spontaneous order that is supposed to
prevail in anarchy will supposedly provide for us. Your contention is
that it will also produce more peace and order than we experience with
a government and we will see more criminals brought to justice and
punished appropriately for their crimes, and so on. That is a
powerful force acting to cause all of this.
But, currently this force does nothing against our government.
Instead our government gets ever bigger. And in general any
government will do this, you claim. This is supposed to be why we are
to choose anarchy over government of any kind -- because even a
minimal government will degenerate into a big government. Only
anarchy can resist this trend because of this powerful force of
spontaneous order. Why is it that this force that corrects the
formation of a state in anarchy doesn't just cause a state to become
an anarchy in the context of a state?
This isn't "if the government doesn't do it who will?" This is more
like "Promises, promises -- if it cannot stop our current government
then how is it going to stop future governments?" This natural force
is supposed to (among many other things) block governments. But at
the same time, it does no such thing when acting in the context of a
minimal government. Instead it causes a big government?
But I will say that I am using the fact that we haven't seen anarchy
so far. I am merely *using* it -- it is not my argument.
On Fri, 20 Apr 2001 23:52:14 -0600, "Owl" <a@a.a> wrote:
Adrian
>"Adrian" <adri...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>news:3adf7c6e...@news-server.nc.rr.com...
<snip>
>
>> WOAH! I agree whole heartedly. Now think about it for a while in the
>> context of private protective agencies with a mildly large bully in
>> their midst that could defeat any one or two of its opponents but not
>> all 100 of them. Don't tell me that simply cannot happen. It happens
>> all the time in a normal market.
>
>Really, you should read Friedman's book. The Machinery of Freedom. Order it
>online someplace. "It" doesn't happen all the time--in a free market,
>monopolies almost never happen. As I mentioned last time, the warlike agency
>would face higher costs than any of the peaceful agencies. Plus, it would
>have a hard time convincing its employees of the need to attack other
>agencies.
>
I agree that monopolies don't happen in a free market. I'll even say
that if they do occur naturally (i.e. noncoercively) that it is no big
deal since they are still under market forces and must produce the
whole time they exist as a monopoly and probably will not last for
very long at that.
What happens all the time in a normal market is that there will be big
companies and little companies. And most companies are not
particularly righteous or upstanding unless they have to be for some
reason. And even if they do have to be, they usually screw up to one
extent or another. In other words, just because a certain behavior is
selected for doesn't mean it is universally engaged in. In fact, it
rarely is in the same way that in the case of natural selection you do
not have only the selected for species existing. What happens instead
is that some all different kinds exist wiht the most naturally
selected for dominating and no perfectly selected for species existing
at any given point in time.
It's the same way with companies. Just because market forces will
select for a certain behavior, that doesn't mean that everyone acts
that way. Instead probably no one acts perfectly that way and a lot
of them will digress quite significantly from it -- some completely.
>> Well, that is assuming they lose.
>
>No, war is costly. People get injured or killed, property gets destroyed.
>Because we won World War II doesn't mean it didn't cost us anything!
>
But if I conquer you and take all your stuff and enslave all your
people, I could easily come out ahead
>> Why can't they just do what Hitler
>> did and create a self-sufficient force and expand outward conquering
>> the world?
>
>I'm not really sure what you mean here by "self-sufficient", and Hitler
>didn't conquer the world. He sure caused a lot of trouble. But given the
>differences between governments and businesses, and between government
>leaders and business leaders, wouldn't you say it is much more likely that a
>government leader tries to take over the world than that a business leader
>does so?
>
I would sya that that is one reason businesses are illequiped to
compete with governments or even those government minded businesses
that haven't reached the status of "government" yet.
>> What compounds the problem is that it is more cost effective for us to
>> trade for clients closer to us. Suppose a simple example of my having
>> an agency with one building or base that I can deploy force from, and
>> you have the same. It is more cost effective for me to trade a client
>> near your base for a client of yours near my base.
>
>You can look at existing security guard companies. They don't have
>territorial monopolies on the basis that they 'trade customers' as you say.
>
>Pizza delivery companies don't have territorial monopolies on the grounds
>that they trade customers, either. Each just serves the customers who come
>to them.
>
Actually this is a very good example of *my* point. A security gaurd
company doesn't simply agree to protect someone's building and then do
nothing until something happens. Instead they set up some number of
agreed to gaurds to patrol the grounds of the building. And if these
gaurds are taken out, then that is usually it for them. In come the
police or national guard. Whatever criminal activity that happened
then goes off to somewhere else (the government) to be resolved and
the agency will set up a new patrol if necessary.
They do not deploy forces from their agency to run out and defend the
building. They set up a base at the building, providing their own
guards. On your way to work, you are not acting as an agent of the
agency -- you are just going to work. Only after you get there does
your job start. So, that is very territorial. And the reason that
security guard companies and pizza delivery companies do not have
terrotiroial monopolies on their business is because they all defer to
some other authority when it comes to the (legitimate) use of force.
>> or even roving bases for that matter. It is in their interests to
>> settle down and focus on an area, the closer to base the better.
>
>Presumably, most security agencies would focus on a limited area, just as is
>the case with most companies. Nothing about that implies a monopoly.
>
>> So it is much more difficult and takes much more resources to break
>> into a geographic monopoly (lay siege to a castle perhaps) than to
>> maintain one.
>
>Yes, and that is why if you have a government, it is difficult to get rid of
>it. However, to establish a monopoly, starting from a competitive situation,
>you would first have to destroy the other operators in the area.
>
>> It certianly isn't impossible, but what about the
>> largest agency around that practically already has a monopoly in a
>> large contiguous area?
>
>That would make them pretty close to a government.
>
>> They take all their resources and pull out of
>> the markets they were in to control a smaller monopoly. They close
>> their borders and raise their premiums or just subjugate their
>> populace to make a war machine.
>
>... at which point "their" customers move to the nearby territory with the
>nice agencies, and they don't have any income any more.
No -- they close their borders.
>
>But that doesn't happen in the first place, because they never have a
>monopoly to begin with. Therefore, they can't "pull out of the markets ...
>to control a smaller monopoly."
>
No matter what the situation is, if you get enough men with guns
together and establish yourself tactically withing a region, you can
conquer it. The question is what force is there to stop them? If
they focus on conquering a small enough area, then it will have to be
an altruistic act on the part of other agencies to stop them from
doing this. It would be better to avoid conflict with a large and
powerful agency that you would likely not be able to defeat in an all
out war and just sacrifice the markets they are taking up for the
larger market that they have abandoned for their monopoly.
Now you might say, well then, they have left the other agencies with a
bigger piece of the pie -- that was stupid of them. But they haven't
because now they can subjugate all the producers in their area and
build a much mroe powerful war machine than they could with the kind
of premiums that a competitive market would yield. So they lose 60%
of their customers and manage to subjugate enough customers that were
under someone else to replenish only 40% (say) of the ones they lost.
So they only have 80% the people they had before, but now they have
effectuvely tripled (say) their premium by subjugating them.
You would have to specifically act in response to this as a conspiracy
to reinvent government that you feel you have to thwart in good
conscience to act against them. It would be more in your interest to
try to get the 60% of the customers they abandoned to sign on with
you, than to recapture the customers of yours they just stole. What
would a judge say about this? That you have to fight them anyway even
though you cannot possibly hope to win? That woudl be like a judge
under our current government sending police officers off to jail for
retreating form a paramitilitary force that has siezed a town
somewhere.
>> Now what was that you were saying
>> about why the Jews didn't rush the guards in Nazi Germany? Are you
>> going to say that all these smaller agencies are going to attack the
>> biggest one around?
>
>No, *it* has to attack them, in order to get the monopoly or near-monopoly
>you are hypothesizing to begin with. And how does that happen? At the next
>shareholder's meeting, one of the executives at Tannahelp Security says, "I
>say we issue a memo to our employees telling them to shoot members of Dawn
>Defense Agency on sight"? Everyone agrees it's a good idea, so they issue
>the memo. Imagine that you work for Tannahelp at this time. What would you
>do? (Answer honestly.) Now imagine that you work for Dawn, and one day a few
>wackos from Tannahelp start shooting at you and your partner. What would you
>do? Third question. Now imagine that you are a customer, trying to decide
>between subscribing to Tannahelp, Dawn, or a third company, Murbard, Ltd.,
>which is not involved in the conflict. What do you do?
>
>Now, you really, really need to read David Friedman's book. Chapters 29-30.
>
No -- that isn't what happens. What happens is the employees of
tannahelp are all clique with loyalty like the police or a gang or a
group of infantry soldiers. The CEO of tannahelp starts organizing a
big operation of securing a region. It happens without contest as he
builds his forces up until one day he launches an assualt on the area
and conquers it. Now you're the CEO of Murbard. And lets suppose for
the sake of argument that Tannahelp has all of their guards and
resources now in this area which amounts to twice the forces you have
in your entire company. Are you going to say "Hey! 3% of our business
is in the area that Tannahelp just conquered! Let's get 'em!"
This is more like how this sort of thing has always happened. Your
scenario certainly is absurd, but only because it assumes that the
forces that the spontaneous order of anarchy must resist act like
corporations. That is precisely where you are begging the question.
You have to pit corporations against war parties and *then* see how it
turns out.
>> that tries to gain power illegitimately. In this case, they do not
>> lose business because they are manuvering legitimately in the market
>> to get all their business as close together over the right region as
>> possible
>
>So they refuse customers who live outside that region? And they somehow
>convince all the customers in that region to use them, or they convince all
>other agencies operating in that region to refuse all customers?
No -- they build a perimeter of men that no one has enough forces to
sacrifice saving the few customers they have in that region.
>
>I can't think of any real cases in which a company refuses customers or
>'trades customers' with other companies.
>
This issue doesn't really belong here, but I can -- companies
outsource all the time. Independently of the issue of someone
conquering a region, tannahelp may well hire Dawn to protect the
customers they have near Dawn's headquarters. It happens with
insurance companies all the time (though not geographically) through
reinsurance among other things. They even hire each other out to
adminsiter claims. You can totally divy up the services that are
generally bundled together in a block of business and restructure
them.
>> So why is that? It isn't because there is an even bigger government
>> forcing this monopoly, or if there is then lets just cut to the chase
>> and talk about the largest government and the private security,
>> arbitration, and other agencies that peacefully do business in its
>> territories. Why don't they just spontaneously replace the
>> government.
>
>Well, it seems pretty clear what the reason is for that. Try doing it. As
>soon as you get started, you'll have government agents on your door to
>arrest you. You can fight against them, but you'll probably lose. I don't
>see how this shows that anarchy isn't good.
No one ever said that what anarchists describe as anarchy isn't good.
They just don't think it can exist.
>
>> There is certainly a cost for R&D. And some times it doesn't even pan
>> out at all, so that there is a risk of a large cost for no benefit.
>> But that doesn't stop it from happening in any other industry. Why is
>> it shut completely down in a government?
>
>The ideas of anarcho-capitalism were only developed in about the 1970s, and
>few people have yet accepted them.
> I can imagine you interviewing Tesla about his crazy AC power idea. He's
>been trying to sell it for a few years, with no takers yet. You say, "In
>industry, good ideas are adopted. So why hasn't yours been adopted?
>Apparently, it's not good. Thus, I will not accept it."
>
But the forces that cause and maintain anarchy have always existed --
they are natural forces. It is more like saying that there is this
phenomenon -- lightning, say -- that electricity will produce
naturally, and yet (supposing for the sake of argument) it has never
happened.
You cannot talk like anarchy is something you are going to create like
Tesla created AC power. It is specifically something that will happen
naturally -- if not at first, in the long run it will maintain itself
naturally. Or, at least that is the whole idea. If the world has to
get together and create or adopt anarchy, then that isn't really
anarchy -- that is some other kind of government with the trappings of
anarchy. Anarchy is supposed to occur naturally out of the
independent actions of people that are indifferent to government
acting without consideration of whether or not it promotes government.
Paul T. Ireland
William Peterson:
Yeah right. 10 bucks plus to deliver a letter vs. 34 cents.
Paul T. Ireland:
Actually the free market could easily deliver letters for less than 34
cents. Oil companies can deliver 4 pounds of oil across the entire planet
for less than 28 cents!
Paul Zrimsek
<b...@wiredinvestor.com> wrote:
>(c) This chapter shall not prohibit the conveyance or transmission of
>letters or packets by private hands without compensation,
>
>Seems pretty clear to me. All it says is that they can't establish a
>regular schedule.
Huh? It also says they can't charge money. Puts a bit of a dent in the
old business model, doesn't it?
--------------------
The law allows for the private carriage of letters under certain
circumstances, including letters:
* Sent with and relating in all substantial respects to the cargo that
they accompany.
* Carried by the senders or recipients or their regular, salaried
employees.
* Carried by private hands without compensation.
* Carried by special messenger on an infrequent, irregular basis for
the sender or addressee.
* Carried to or from a postal facility prior or subsequent to mailing.
For example, an individual may transport without restriction his or
her own letters, or a company its own letters (but not those of a
parent or subsidiary) if it uses its regular salaried employees as
couriers. Contract couriers would not qualify under this exception to
the Statutes.
More information regarding exceptions and suspensions to the Private
Express Statutes is available in 39 CFR 310.3 and 320. In addition,
the USPS has suspended the Private Express Statutes for
extremely urgent letters (see below).
Certain extremely urgent letters may be carried by means other than
the USPS and without the payment of postage. To ensure that this
provision is not open-ended, two tests of urgency are prescribed. If
either of these tests is met, the suspension applies:
(1) The letter will lose its value if not delivered within specific
urgent time limits, and the private carrier meets that time limit.
Specifically, the time limit for this test for letters dispatched
before 12 noon and within 50 miles of the intended destination is
delivery within 6 hours or by the close of the addressee’s normal
business day. Delivery of letters dispatched within the same distance
after 12 noon and before 12 midnight must be completed by 10 a.m. of
the addressee’s next business day. For letters sent more than 50
miles, delivery must be completed within 12 hours or by noon of
the addressee’s next business day.
-- or--
(2) It is "conclusively presumed" that a letter is extremely urgent if
the amount paid for the private carriage of the letter is at least
$3.00 or twice the applicable First-Class rate (including Priority
Mail), whichever is greater.
Scott Weiser
<b...@wiredinvestor.com> wrote:
>Cite please. Since when is it illegal to send a normal letter by UPS
>or FedEx?
Check the postal code on the USPS website.
It's illegal to send first class mail via courier. Only "extremely
urgent" materials can be sent by courier service.
Scott Weiser
<b...@wiredinvestor.com> wrote:
>(c) This chapter shall not prohibit the conveyance or transmission of
>letters or packets by private hands without compensation,
>
>Seems pretty clear to me. All it says is that they can't establish a
>regular schedule.
No, it says that you can give a letter to your mother and have her
give it to your grandma without violating postal regulations.
Scott Weiser
>The public will? There is no such thing.
Sure there is. It's expressed at every election.
> The public is not a being
>with consciousness.
Nobody said it was.
> It can have no will of its own.
Pettifoggery. The public will is the manifestation of the individual
wills of the members of the community reached through the appointed
decision-making processes used by that community to make decisions
about collective action.
This tired old canard used ad nauseum that there is no such thing as
"the people" or "the public" or "the public will" or "the public good"
ie: the denial of any collective rights or collective powers or
collective needs in a community, is merely ignorant denial of facts,
usually done because any admission that a large group may have a good
reason to impose it's collective will on an individual is anathema to
libertopians. If they admit for a second that some larger group of
people have the right to prevent some malfeasance on the part of an
individual, their whole specious house of libertopian cards comes
crashing down around their heads, so they just deny, deny, deny...but
it just makes them look stupid.
> So all there
>actually is is several conflicting individual wills.
Sure, but the conflict is resolved using the appointed process, and
that collective decision becomes the public will. It's called a
"vote." You've heard of that, right?
> In fact, the
>final resolution in a situation of democracy is very often a
>compromise that no one particularly wants but rather simply tolerates.
Indeed, but it's still the public will.
>
>Even if it reflected what the majority wnated, that wouldn't mean that
>it was consistent with any possible notion of justice.
Non sequitur. We're not discussing justice right now, just the
definition of the public will and how it is determined.
Scott Weiser
>On Sat, 21 Apr 2001 00:41:27 -0600, "Owl" <a@a.a> wrote:
>
>>"Adrian" <adri...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>news:3adf7c6e...@news-server.nc.rr.com...
>
><snip>
>
>>
>>> WOAH! I agree whole heartedly. Now think about it for a while in the
>>> context of private protective agencies with a mildly large bully in
>>> their midst that could defeat any one or two of its opponents but not
>>> all 100 of them. Don't tell me that simply cannot happen. It happens
>>> all the time in a normal market.
>>
>>Really, you should read Friedman's book. The Machinery of Freedom. Order it
>>online someplace. "It" doesn't happen all the time--in a free market,
>>monopolies almost never happen. As I mentioned last time, the warlike agency
>>would face higher costs than any of the peaceful agencies. Plus, it would
>>have a hard time convincing its employees of the need to attack other
>>agencies.
>>
>
>I agree that monopolies don't happen in a free market.
Of course they do. The steel monopolies of the 20's and the oil
monopolies of later years are why government passed anti-trust
laws...to prevent the evil of private, free-market monopolies.
In fact, the *ultimate goal* of any entrepenure in a free-market
system is to drive *every other competitor* out of business so that he
can set the price and sell all the goods. It's called "capturing the
market."
> I'll even say
>that if they do occur naturally (i.e. noncoercively) that it is no big
>deal since they are still under market forces and must produce the
>whole time they exist as a monopoly and probably will not last for
>very long at that.
The problem with your logic is that you forget the costs of starting
up a competing company against a free-market monopoly, which can be an
impossible economic task. If Krupp owns all the steel plants and iron
mines, some person wanting to compete with Krupp has to pour a lot of
money into infrastructure and getting the business going, and while he
is hemmoraging money, Krupp can simply start a "loss leader" program
of undercutting product prices so that the competitor will never
succeed in capturing enough of the market to make any money...and the
competitor will go into bankruptcy.
That's what's happening to American steel producers right now, because
Japan is dumping loss-leader cheap steel on the market, hoping to
drive US steelmakers out of business (which is happening at an
alarming rate) and thus capture *all* the market.
The problem with free-market monopolies is precisely that they can
last damned near forever, once they corner the market in some good or
another.
>
>What happens all the time in a normal market is that there will be big
>companies and little companies. And most companies are not
>particularly righteous or upstanding unless they have to be for some
>reason. And even if they do have to be, they usually screw up to one
>extent or another. In other words, just because a certain behavior is
>selected for doesn't mean it is universally engaged in. In fact, it
>rarely is in the same way that in the case of natural selection you do
>not have only the selected for species existing. What happens instead
>is that some all different kinds exist wiht the most naturally
>selected for dominating and no perfectly selected for species existing
>at any given point in time.
That simply doesn't happen without government regulation of
businesses. In unregulated free-market economies, the big fish eat
the little fish till they are the only fish in the pond, and then they
jack up prices and rake in the money for a century or two.
>
>>> Why can't they just do what Hitler
>>> did and create a self-sufficient force and expand outward conquering
>>> the world?
>>
>>I'm not really sure what you mean here by "self-sufficient", and Hitler
>>didn't conquer the world. He sure caused a lot of trouble. But given the
>>differences between governments and businesses, and between government
>>leaders and business leaders, wouldn't you say it is much more likely that a
>>government leader tries to take over the world than that a business leader
>>does so?
>>
>
>I would sya that that is one reason businesses are illequiped to
>compete with governments or even those government minded businesses
>that haven't reached the status of "government" yet.
Well, the fucking WTO and now this FTAA horror has just about given
transnational companies the status of governments, and we're going to
regret allowing it, a lot.
Yes, they defer to the law..and the government.
Scott Weiser
Yeah, but only in million-ton lots. Try to ship all that oil in 4
pound cans and the economies of scale will eat you alive.
John A. Stovall
Weiser) wrote:
>On Sun, 22 Apr 2001 01:31:22 GMT, adri...@hotmail.com (Adrian) wrote:
>
>>The public will? There is no such thing.
>
>Sure there is. It's expressed at every election.
Oh, then read this and explain to us the difference between "public
will" and slavery.
Taken from "Anarchy, State and Utopia" by Robert Nozick, Basic Books,
New York, New York, 1974, pp. 290-292, 'The Tale of the Slave".
"..
1. There is a slave completely at the mercy of his brutal
master's whims. He often is cruelly beaten, called out in the middle
of the night, and so on.
2. The master is kindlier and beats the slave only for stated
infractions of his rules (not fulfilling the work quota, and so on).
He gives the slave some free time.
3. The master has a group of slaves, and he decides how things
are to be allocated among them on nice ground, taking into account
their needs, merit, and so on.
4. The master allows his slaves four days on their own and
requires then to work only three days a week on his land. The rest of
the time is their own
5. The master allows his slaves to go off and work in the city
(or anywhere they wish) for wages. He requires only that they send
back to him three-sevenths of their wages. He also retains the power
to recall them to the plantation if some emergency threatens his land;
and to raise or lower the three-sevenths amount required to be turned
over to him. He further retains the right to restrict the slaves from
participating in certain dangerous activities that threaten his
financial return, for example mountain climbing, cigarette smoking.
6. The master allows all of his 10,000 slaves, except you, to
vote, and the joint decision is made by all of them. There is open
discussion, and so forth, among them and they have the power to
determine to what uses to put whatever percentage of your (and their)
earnings they decide to take; what activities legitimately may be
forbidden to you, and so on.
Let us pause in this sequence to take stock. If the master
contracts this transfer of power so that he cannot withdraw it, you
have a change of master. You now have 10,000 masters instead of just
one; rather you have one 10,000-headed master. Perhaps the 10,000 even
will be kindlier than the benevolent master in case 2. Still, they
are your master. However, still more can be done. A kindly single
master (as in case 2) might allow his slave(s) to speak up and try to
persuade him to make a certain decision. The 10,000-headed master can
do this also.
7. Though still not having the vote, you are at liberty (and are
given the right) to enter into the discussions of the 10,000. To try
and persuade them to adopt various policies and treat you and
themselves in a certain way. They then go off to vote to decide upon
policies covering the vast range of their powers.
8. In appreciation of you useful contributions to discussion, the
10,000 allow you to vote if they are deadlocked; they commit
themselves to this procedure. After the discussion you mark your vote
on a slip of paper, and they go off and vote. In the eventuality that
they divide evenly on some issue, 5,000 for and 5,000 against, they
look at your ballot and count it in. This has never yet happened;
they have yet had occasion to open your ballot. (A single master also
might commit himself to letting the slave decide any issue concerning
him about which he, the master, was absolutely indifferent.)
9. They throw your vote in with theirs. If they are exactly tied
your vote carries the issue. Otherwise it makes no difference to the
electoral outcome.
The question is: which transition from case 1 to case 9 made it no
longer the tall of a slave?"
*****************************************************
"Keep clear of the dupes that talk democracy
And the dogs that talk revolution,
Drunk with talk, liars and belivers.
I believe in my tusks..........."
Stars Go over the Lonely Ocean
Robinson Jeffers
Paul Zrimsek
Weiser) wrote:
>>I agree that monopolies don't happen in a free market.
>
>Of course they do. The steel monopolies of the 20's and the oil
>monopolies of later years are why government passed anti-trust
>laws...to prevent the evil of private, free-market monopolies.
There were no steel monopolies in the 1920s, or oil monopolies in
later years. The closest the steel industry ever came to monopoly was
on the day US Steel was formed by merger in 1901; it promptly began
losing market share to upstarts like Bethlehem and Republic. The
closest the oil industry ever came to monopoly was during the prime of
Standard Oil; however, the history of kerosene prices (Standard's big
product during those years) offers no evidence that the company
enjoyed pricing power; if Standard had it, it does not appear to have
used it. By the time Standard was broken up in 1911, a number of large
independent companies (starting with Pure Oil in 1895) had already
done what you consider impossible and gone into business competing
with it.
The only important anti-trust law which was not already in place by
the 1920s was the Robinson-Patman Act (1936).
None of this is to say that "monopolies don't happen in a free
market". There are still natural monopolies (i.e., monopolies which
happen because they ought to happen). Their importance should not be
overestimated.
>In fact, the *ultimate goal* of any entrepenure in a free-market
>system is to drive *every other competitor* out of business so that he
>can set the price and sell all the goods. It's called "capturing the
>market."
Well, no; the ultimate goal is to make money. Whether or not driving
out every other competitor is a useful means toward that goal depends
on what you have to do in order to drive them out-- and keep them out.
>The problem with your logic is that you forget the costs of starting
>up a competing company against a free-market monopoly, which can be an
>impossible economic task. If Krupp owns all the steel plants and iron
>mines, some person wanting to compete with Krupp has to pour a lot of
>money into infrastructure and getting the business going, and while he
>is hemmoraging money, Krupp can simply start a "loss leader" program
>of undercutting product prices so that the competitor will never
>succeed in capturing enough of the market to make any money...and the
>competitor will go into bankruptcy.
I assume you're familiar with the arguments offered by Chicago-school
economists for why such a strategy is unlikely to pay? (They start
with, but are not limited to, the observation that Krupp is losing
money even faster.) What shortcomings do you find in them?
Note that unless your predatory-pricing theory can be made to fly, the
costs of starting up a competing company against a free-market
monopoly are less than in a competitive market, because of the
prevailing higher-than-market prices.
>That's what's happening to American steel producers right now, because
>Japan is dumping loss-leader cheap steel on the market, hoping to
>drive US steelmakers out of business (which is happening at an
>alarming rate) and thus capture *all* the market.
A vintage whine. This is what US steelmakers say whenever they're
lobbying the government-- sorry, the Public Will-- to hamstring their
competitors.
>The problem with free-market monopolies is precisely that they can
>last damned near forever, once they corner the market in some good or
>another.
Counterexamples already provided. Remainder snipped.
Paul Zrimsek pzri...@earthlink.net
------------------------------------------------------
At one time, the foreigners competed fairly: they made
chocolates and little hand-carved figurines, and we
made everything else. -- Dave Barry
Scott Weiser
<john.a....@mindspring.com> wrote:
>On Sun, 22 Apr 2001 05:59:29 GMT, wei...@private.altnews.com (Scott
>Weiser) wrote:
>
>>On Sun, 22 Apr 2001 01:31:22 GMT, adri...@hotmail.com (Adrian) wrote:
>>
>>>The public will? There is no such thing.
>>
>>Sure there is. It's expressed at every election.
>
>Oh, then read this and explain to us the difference between "public
>will" and slavery.
The Constitution and the laws that flow from it which both deny and
forbid slavery, and the fact that no one is compelled to remain within
this society if they find the expressions of the public will
intolerable.
Thus, they are here voluntarily, and cannot, therefore, be slaves,
ipso facto.
>Taken from "Anarchy, State and Utopia" by Robert Nozick, Basic Books,
>New York, New York, 1974, pp. 290-292, 'The Tale of the Slave".
>
>"..
>1. There is a slave completely at the mercy of his brutal
>master's whims. He often is cruelly beaten, called out in the middle
>of the night, and so on.
Snip
>
>The question is: which transition from case 1 to case 9 made it no
>longer the tall of a slave?"
The question, and the example are non sequitur and fallacious because
the example flows from a faulty premise, which is that the initial
condition of an individual in this national community is that of a
slave. That is simply ot true.
That is certainly a valid example in *some* social models or
communities (some central African countries come to mind), but not in
the United States under the Constitution.