Post by: RJMcElwain on September 26, 2007, 12:01:24 PM
Bob
Post by: Manedwolf on September 26, 2007, 12:08:59 PM
Post by: Risasi on September 26, 2007, 12:09:11 PM
Quote
Is this the direction of our national security operations in the future?
Uh...yeah.
Quote
My only concern is when they're used stateside to get around posse comitatus.
I'm sure more will surface RE: the Katrina incident...
---
P.S. Who has seen the Najaf video?
Post by: RJMcElwain on September 26, 2007, 12:15:17 PM
My only concern is when they're used stateside to get around posse comitatus. They're trained to destroy things and protect individuals by destroying people they see as a threat, not keep the peace.
Sorry Manedwolf, but you didn't add to my comfort level at all.
Bob
Post by: Waitone on September 26, 2007, 02:48:58 PM
Before the beginning of our latest war the head whup in the Army (and I can not remember his name at this time) predicted we'd need 400,000 pairs of boots in Iraq to do the job. He was ridiculed and eventually pushed out because he dared to speak out. Well guess what! Add our current troop levels to our current contractor levels and you come real close to his prediction of 400,000 pairs of boots on the ground.
The scandal in not the incident with Blackwater. It was bound to occur and at this point we still don't know what reality is. The real scandal is we've outsourced essential national defense functions to private contractors (who just happen to have close ties to political families). Rules of behavior are not the same and political pressure for screwup is shunted off the target.
Post by: wmenorr67 on September 26, 2007, 05:17:12 PM
Post by: Perd Hapley on September 26, 2007, 05:35:37 PM
Quote
Before the beginning of our latest war the head whup in the Army (and I can not remember his name at this time) predicted we'd need 400,000 pairs of boots in Iraq to do the job.
Gen. Shinseki?
Are mercenaries inherently bad?
Post by: ilbob on September 26, 2007, 05:41:57 PM
The minor paperwork violations regarding class III firearms is not a whole lot worse than the many firearms just lost by LE and military agencies on a pretty regular basis. You start to do stuff in any numbers and mistakes happen.
Post by: Bogie on September 26, 2007, 05:51:41 PM
Thing is, I suspect they are forgetting the real reason that Patton went through Europe so fast - We no longer have a "Red Ball Express" that cares beyond "is the letter of the contract fulfilled."
Post by: Dannyboy on September 26, 2007, 06:18:06 PM
Post by: Thor on September 26, 2007, 08:06:32 PM
Post by: Gewehr98 on September 26, 2007, 08:12:44 PM
You know, the aircraft mechanic mercenaries, and the chow hall mercenaries.
Post by: Bogie on September 26, 2007, 09:16:36 PM
Remember - if you can use numbers to make The Great Satan look bad, it must be news!
Post by: Thor on September 27, 2007, 07:34:09 AM
Post by: Paddy on September 27, 2007, 08:07:51 AM
1) Transfer huge sums of public money to private pockets,
2) Evade the rules, chain of command and accountability of the U.S. military,
3) Provide a private army to the POTUS.
King George III would be proud.
Post by: MechAg94 on September 27, 2007, 08:56:11 AM
Post by: wmenorr67 on September 27, 2007, 04:03:24 PM
KBR has the contracts and does the hiring, but guess where most of those hirees are from. You guessed it, Iraq mostly.
Post by: Balog on September 27, 2007, 04:07:13 PM
Post by: RevDisk on September 27, 2007, 06:13:15 PM
Quote
Before the beginning of our latest war the head whup in the Army (and I can not remember his name at this time) predicted we'd need 400,000 pairs of boots in Iraq to do the job.
Gen. Shinseki?
Are mercenaries inherently bad?
If they are deployed domestically and are still breathing? Yes.
Post by: Perd Hapley on September 27, 2007, 06:30:10 PM
Are mercenaries inherently bad?
If they are deployed domestically and are still breathing? Yes.
Well, yeah.
Post by: Paddy on September 27, 2007, 06:37:12 PM
Quote
Before the beginning of our latest war the head whup in the Army (and I can not remember his name at this time) predicted we'd need 400,000 pairs of boots in Iraq to do the job.
Gen. Shinseki?
Are mercenaries inherently bad?
Quote
If they are deployed domestically and are still breathing? Yes.
But a foreign country is ok? When did we become Imperialists?
Post by: Perd Hapley on September 27, 2007, 07:07:38 PM
You are all now dumber for having read this thread.
Post by: RJMcElwain on September 28, 2007, 05:09:08 AM
As I recall, Billy The Kid was hired by the government to maintain order at one time, and he and his gang were called "regulators".
Bob
Post by: Iapetus on September 28, 2007, 08:14:31 AM
I don't see that mercenaries are a whole lot worse than large standing armies. If nothing else, you can shut them down just by turning off the money. Very hard to do that with actual troops.
Or alternatively, find yourself having to deal with a large group of well-armed people who suddenly find themselves out of work and pissed off, and who lack the sense of national loyalty that proper soldiers have.
Quote from: Niccolo Machiavelli
I say, then, that the armies with which a prince defends his state are made up of his own troops, or mercenaries, or auxiliaries, or of mixed troops. Mercenaries and auxiliaries are useless and dangerous. If a prince holds on to his state by means of mercenary armies, he will never be stable or secure. Mercenaries are disunited, ambitious, undisciplined, and disloyal. They are brave with their friends; with their enemies they are cowards... they have no love nor other motive to keep them in the field than a meagre salary, which is not enough to make them want to die for you. They love being your soldiers when you are not waging war, but when war comes, they either flee or desert...
Mercenary captains are either excellent men, or they are not. If they are, you cannot trust them, since they will always aspire to their own greatness, either by oppressing you... or by oppressing others against your intent; but if the captain is without ability, he usually ruins you...
We see from experience that only princes and their republics armed with their own troops make very great progress, and that mercenaries cause nothing but damage.
Mercenary captains are either excellent men, or they are not. If they are, you cannot trust them, since they will always aspire to their own greatness, either by oppressing you... or by oppressing others against your intent; but if the captain is without ability, he usually ruins you...
We see from experience that only princes and their republics armed with their own troops make very great progress, and that mercenaries cause nothing but damage.
NB, by "auxiliaries", he means foreign troops sent by a foreign state, in response to a request for aid. He disapproves of these because while (unlike mercenaries) they can be very effective, relying on them can leave you at the mercy of the state that sent them.
NB2, although off-topic for this discussion, I'll just mention that Machiavelli cites Switzerland and Sparta as examples of states whose long-standing freedom was a result of their well-armed citizenry.
Post by: Manedwolf on September 28, 2007, 08:18:04 AM
Whee. DynCorp, who was found to have been running a child sex ring in Bosnia. They make Blackwater look like saints.
Post by: Gewehr98 on September 28, 2007, 03:36:59 PM
Quote
But a foreign country is ok? When did we become Imperialists?
I figure sometime before Teddy Roosevelt's presidency, when we were canoodling around in the Philippines and Cuba.
Post by: Perd Hapley on September 28, 2007, 03:51:54 PM
Correct. Before that, we only invaded ourselves.
Post by: Matthew Carberry on September 28, 2007, 08:43:46 PM
Correct. Before that, we only invaded ourselves.
I still do that.
...and kittens die.
Post by: wooderson on September 29, 2007, 04:43:18 PM
Post by: roo_ster on September 29, 2007, 04:56:32 PM
Bob Kaplan is not so worried about private security firms:
http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200709u/kaplan-blackwater
Post by: RevDisk on September 29, 2007, 05:06:52 PM
Quote
But a foreign country is ok? When did we become Imperialists?
How foreign countries want to deal with mercs is their business. Apparently it's fashionable to burn them alive, hang them upside down, and beat them with sticks. In another country, the typical treatment was a burning gasoline-soaked tire. Interestingly, they did not burn to death, but rather asphyxiation. I have a difficult time getting worked up about that, but I do think it's preferable to just shoot them.
Post by: Art Eatman on October 01, 2007, 04:34:00 AM
Only contractors of the Defense Department are subject to US law, per a law passed in 2000. Blackwater, however, is contracted to the State Department.
If you read Farnham, et al, about executive protection training and requirements, cops and GIs are candidates for training into that work, but are not inherently competent by virtue of past training. And that's the "why" of Blackwater and others.
The earliest instance of private-army mercenaries of which I'm aware is that of Shell Oil Corp. They began their system in the 1970s after kidnapping of executives became popular. The effort includes plant security as well as executive protection. The original boss of that effort apparently had much in common with the African buffalo insofar as attitude and charm.
Post by: doczinn on October 01, 2007, 06:04:46 AM
Quote
Only contractors of the Defense Department are subject to US law, per a law passed in 2000. Blackwater, however, is contracted to the State Department.
Not quite. Only contractors of the Defense Department are subject to military law, which kinda makes sense.Post by: Phantom Warrior on October 01, 2007, 07:35:48 AM
That said, people are overreacting to this whole "mercenary" thing. As has been mentioned the number 100,000 covers ALL the contractors of any type in Iraq. The vast majority of those are people like the Indians that work at the laundry point, the guys from Ratheon that got hired to come over here and install CREW systems (electronic warfare), the corporation that manages non-Iraqi terps, the firefighters, etc. All of those people are present on our FOB, but there are no security contractors on our FOB. All the force pro is handled by soldiers.
Within the security contractors there is another divide. A lot of the security contractors are basically third country nationals (Africa or Far East, I'm not exactly sure where) who are hired to hold an M4 and guard the entrance to the PX in the IZ or or watch a check point inside a secured area or something. These guys have almost no gear besides their weapon. The ones in more exposed locations, like checkpoints, are wearing the requisite body armor and helmet. But the guys inside the IZ don't have anything but a khaki uniform, a boonie hat, and their M4. I've never seen any of them with sidearms, night vision, medical kits, or even spare magazines (maybe one). All secure U.S. military facilities (hospital, FOBs, headquarters, entrance to the IZ) are still guarded by U.S. soldiers.
The last, and probably smallest, category is the more high speed contractors like Blackwater, Dynecorp, etc. These guys do have the more sophisticated body armor, side arms, sometimes tactical radios, and roll around in SUVs equipped with radios, BFTs, CREW systems, and sometimes turrets w/ crew served weapons. These guys do things from providing security to KBR convoys to securing non-military U.S. government facilities.
It wouldn't surprise me if security contractors are sometimes used to do things that it is illegal for the military to do. But the reason for the majority of them is to perform duties, like securing State Department officials or guarding parts of the IZ, that the military does not have the combat power to do. We are stretched thin as it is. The reason you will see a draw down in Iraq next summer is because over half of the Army brigade combat teams are deployed right now. There simply is no one available to replace the surge. I'm sure the Marines are in a similar situation. We flat out do not have the combat power to fritter away on securing all the various government personnel and facilities scattered all over Iraq.
Which is where the security contractors come in. By hiring out the a lot of the security work the military is free to do our job and destroy the enemy. (Don't get me wrong, we aren't even doing that. But that's a topic for a whole different thread.) If the military was twice as big we'd have the soldiers to stand guard on anything we wanted. But it isn't. And the size of the military is statutorily regulated, so they can't just go out and hire more people.
There are some things about security contractors that aren't good. They could definitely use some more oversight, and I'm not very comfortable with the idea of them being deployed stateside. But hiring some guys to drive State Department officials around Baghdad is a far cry from King George. I think we can put the revolution off a little bit longer.
Post by: RJMcElwain on October 02, 2007, 05:24:15 AM
Good thoughts. However, a couple of points. Given the inability of our government to report anything accurately and, specifically, the Pentagon to know where they're spending their money, is there any reason to believe that 100,000 number?
More important, is this the direction we want our military to go in the long run? To hired mercenaries? As I mentioned earlier, this country has had experience with this in the past, and all of it bad, IE "The Regulators" and other such vigilante groups.
I find the idea of "guns for hire" in place of a citizen military a scary idea.
Bob
Post by: Phantom Warrior on October 02, 2007, 08:22:31 AM
*shrug*
I don't have access to high-level government documents, nor do I make a tick mark on a notepad every time I drive by a contractor. That said, 100,000 is the number you hear all the time in the news and it sounds about right. I've seen lots and lots of laundry, mechanic, chow contractors and a small number of security contractors. There certainly isn't a sector controlled by Blackwater or anything.
Regarding hired mercenaries again, as stated, most of these guys are basically security guards. Does your town have rent-a-cops that guard business or local events? If you work for a big company, are there security guards in the parking lot? Because that's the role these guys are filling. Your town could put POST-certified, sworn officers at every business and parking lot in town. But that would mean a much, much larger police force.
Similarly, if you want to get rid of the contractors and replace them with soldiers you need to get Congress to authorize a larger standing military. Then you need to get them to authorize the billions of dollars to recruit, train, pay, house, clothe, feed, equip, and provide medical care and other benefits for these soldiers to stand guard at a PX. You don't need fully trained, sworn police officers to guard a parking lot, nor do you need a mechanized infantry battalion to do the same thing in Iraq. Using contractors is easier to scale up and down as necessary. Four years ago we had enough soldiers to meet all of our obligations. And when we finally leave Iraq, the need will go away and we can let most of those contractors go. Remember, you can't fire soldiers. Given that the lower end security contractors have less training and less benefits, they are probably cheaper, body for body, than soldiers.
Once again, there are some problems with organizations like Blackwater and their lack of oversight. But unless you want to throw the baby out with the bathwater and stand up a couple more divisions of soldiers to guard parking lots, we need contractors.
Post by: wooderson on October 02, 2007, 09:32:57 AM
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/054718.php
Quote
A few days ago the State Department released what it called a "first blush" report on the Blackwater incident in Baghdad, a report which largely exonerated the Blackwater personnel involved.
I noted at the time that "first blush" was something of an understatement since the report was based exclusively on statements the State Department took from Blackwater operatives on the scene. In other words, the Blackwater employees who did the shooting gave State an account that largely exonerated themselves. A truly shocking development.
But it seems that I was behind the curve on the level of caricature and self-parody that is the military contracting biz in Iraq these days.
The report was written out of the State Department's Bureau of Diplomatic Security, the folks who hired Blackwater to provide security for US diplomats in Iraq. But it turns out that the State Department employee who interviewed the Blackwater folks and wrote the report, Darren Hanner ... well, he wasn't a State Department employee. He was another contractor from Blackwater.
So yes, you've got that right. We've now reached what can only be called the alpha and the omega of contracting accountability breakdown ridiculousness. We're outsourcing our investigations of Blackwater to Blackwater.
I noted at the time that "first blush" was something of an understatement since the report was based exclusively on statements the State Department took from Blackwater operatives on the scene. In other words, the Blackwater employees who did the shooting gave State an account that largely exonerated themselves. A truly shocking development.
But it seems that I was behind the curve on the level of caricature and self-parody that is the military contracting biz in Iraq these days.
The report was written out of the State Department's Bureau of Diplomatic Security, the folks who hired Blackwater to provide security for US diplomats in Iraq. But it turns out that the State Department employee who interviewed the Blackwater folks and wrote the report, Darren Hanner ... well, he wasn't a State Department employee. He was another contractor from Blackwater.
So yes, you've got that right. We've now reached what can only be called the alpha and the omega of contracting accountability breakdown ridiculousness. We're outsourcing our investigations of Blackwater to Blackwater.
Post by: Paddy on October 02, 2007, 10:55:49 AM
Quote
Once again, there are some problems with organizations like Blackwater and their lack of oversight. But unless you want to throw the baby out with the bathwater and stand up a couple more divisions of soldiers to guard parking lots, we need contractors.
Really? Why is that? And how have we managed to fight (how many?) wars without contractors until now?
Post by: Len Budney on October 02, 2007, 11:44:10 AM
And how have we managed to fight (how many?) wars without contractors until now?
Conscription.
Post by: Hawkmoon on October 02, 2007, 12:01:19 PM
More important, is this the direction we want our military to go in the long run? To hired mercenaries? As I mentioned earlier, this country has had experience with this in the past, and all of it bad, IE "The Regulators" and other such vigilante groups.
I find the idea of "guns for hire" in place of a citizen military a scary idea.
I agree -- I dislike and distrust the use of mercenaries.I find the idea of "guns for hire" in place of a citizen military a scary idea.
The alternative, however, is unacceptable to a large segment of the U.S. citizenry: reactivate the draft. Statutory limitations aside, the practical reality is that we aren't going to increase the size of our active duty military by very much even if the statutory limit was doubled. I just read an article within the week that noted the percentage of high school graduates in the military is way down over what it was even a year ago. I zeroed right in on that, because it was my understanding that the "new" (to me, a Vietnam veteran) all-volunteer army wouldn't even talk to anyone who didn't have at least a high scool diploma. Evidently I was incorrect.
So what this means is that to maintain even the inadequate number of troops we have, we are
(a) Lowering the standards for recruitment;
(b) Not allowing people whose contracts (terms of enlistment) have ended to leave the service ("stop loss," a concept unheard of when I was in);
(c) Calling up the reserves; and
(d) Federalizing the National Guard for duty in foreign countries, a role for which the National Guard is not intended.
Items (b), (c) and (d) above are counter-productive, short-term solutions. Some people enlist in the Army Reserve or the National Guard mostly for the "free" education, but they didn't expect to be sent off to some God-forsaken corner of the world for literally years at a time. And I doubt either the reservists, the NG troops, or the regular Army (or Marine) enlistees ever foresaw that when their contract was finished the government would say, "So what? You ain't goin' home until we tell you you're going home. Screw your contract ... read the fine print. No, the VERY fine print, where it says we OWN your sorry ass." Things like that do not make other young men and young women rush the gates to sign up, hence the need for recruiters to lower the standards (although they uniformly deny they have done so) to have even a remote prayer of coming close to meeting their quotas.
Like it or not, if we want a bigger military we have to either SIGNIFICANTLY increase the pay scale, or reinstate the draft. Or perhaps both. I expect that many of you who have grown up since the draft was stopped in the mid-70s will be adamentily opposed to the concept of starting it up again. Having "come of age" during an age when the draft was a fact of life and we looked at it as just another civic obligation ... I don't have a problem with it, and I keep wondering why the Hell they haven't done it.
Post by: RJMcElwain on October 02, 2007, 02:18:08 PM
More important, is this the direction we want our military to go in the long run? To hired mercenaries? As I mentioned earlier, this country has had experience with this in the past, and all of it bad, IE "The Regulators" and other such vigilante groups.
I find the idea of "guns for hire" in place of a citizen military a scary idea.
I agree -- I dislike and distrust the use of mercenaries.I find the idea of "guns for hire" in place of a citizen military a scary idea.
The alternative, however, is unacceptable to a large segment of the U.S. citizenry: reactivate the draft. Statutory limitations aside, the practical reality is that we aren't going to increase the size of our active duty military by very much even if the statutory limit was doubled. I just read an article within the week that noted the percentage of high school graduates in the military is way down over what it was even a year ago. I zeroed right in on that, because it was my understanding that the "new" (to me, a Vietnam veteran) all-volunteer army wouldn't even talk to anyone who didn't have at least a high scool diploma. Evidently I was incorrect.
So what this means is that to maintain even the inadequate number of troops we have, we are
(a) Lowering the standards for recruitment;
(b) Not allowing people whose contracts (terms of enlistment) have ended to leave the service ("stop loss," a concept unheard of when I was in);
(c) Calling up the reserves; and
(d) Federalizing the National Guard for duty in foreign countries, a role for which the National Guard is not intended.
Items (b), (c) and (d) above are counter-productive, short-term solutions. Some people enlist in the Army Reserve or the National Guard mostly for the "free" education, but they didn't expect to be sent off to some God-forsaken corner of the world for literally years at a time. And I doubt either the reservists, the NG troops, or the regular Army (or Marine) enlistees ever foresaw that when their contract was finished the government would say, "So what? You ain't goin' home until we tell you you're going home. Screw your contract ... read the fine print. No, the VERY fine print, where it says we OWN your sorry ass." Things like that do not make other young men and young women rush the gates to sign up, hence the need for recruiters to lower the standards (although they uniformly deny they have done so) to have even a remote prayer of coming close to meeting their quotas.
Like it or not, if we want a bigger military we have to either SIGNIFICANTLY increase the pay scale, or reinstate the draft. Or perhaps both. I expect that many of you who have grown up since the draft was stopped in the mid-70s will be adamentily opposed to the concept of starting it up again. Having "come of age" during an age when the draft was a fact of life and we looked at it as just another civic obligation ... I don't have a problem with it, and I keep wondering why the Hell they haven't done it.
Exactly!!
I was about to reply to "Conscription" by saying something similar to what you said. However, you said it better than I would have. And, unfortunately, none of our politicians have the b***s to even suggest bringing back the draft but, in the end, that's the only true solution. And damn right, more pay!!
Bob
Post by: Gewehr98 on October 02, 2007, 03:24:10 PM
Post by: RevDisk on October 02, 2007, 05:14:27 PM
As somebody who's been stop-lossed twice in his military career, that ain't no fun.
Ever see a piece of paper with your enlistment temporarily extended to 2038 ? I still to this day have no idea why that was put on my paperwork. My IRR time expires this December. I don't worry about it, but...
Never, never sign to military job description that is essential, rare and in high demand.
Post by: Perd Hapley on October 02, 2007, 05:42:43 PM
Never, never sign to military job description that is essential, rare and in high demand.
You mean like when an infantryman on IRR switches to Natl. Guard, as Intelligence? In 2004? Yikes! A very near thing for old fistful on that one.
Post by: Gewehr98 on October 02, 2007, 08:54:25 PM
No news is good news, so far.
Post by: Phantom Warrior on October 03, 2007, 08:22:11 AM
Quote from: RileyMc
Really? Why is that? And how have we managed to fight (how many?) wars without contractors until now?
As has been mentioned, the military used to be much bigger than it is now. The Army was several million soldiers (around eight, I believe) during WWII. Now it is half a million. *shrug*
To anyone advocating the draft, are you willing to pay for it? Something like 2 million men turn 18 every year. Same for women. One of the more common things I hear is "Oh, our young people should all serve two years in the military when they turn 18 to teach them patriotism and discipline." 4 million times $1000/month times 12 months/years equals 48 billion dollars a year. And that's just to pay these people. That doesn't count any of the money that would have to be spent to train, equip, feed, clothe, house, and generally support these millions of troops.
We'll leave aside the whole issue of the precipitous plunge in quality if you quit letting in a few more people w/ GEDs and start whole sale importing people who flat out have no desire to join the military, giving them basic training, and then kicking them out after two years. The bottom line is we have the soldiers we need to win a real war. We stomped Sadaam Hussein in no time flat with much less troops than most people predicted would be necessary. Remember 2003 and the initial push? It's tying up the military garrisoning and policing a country that's a hop, skip, and a jump away from a civil war that is straining our resources.
Post by: RJMcElwain on October 03, 2007, 08:48:04 AM
To anyone advocating the draft, are you willing to pay for it? Something like 2 million men turn 18 every year. Same for women. One of the more common things I hear is "Oh, our young people should all serve two years in the military when they turn 18 to teach them patriotism and discipline." 4 million times $1000/month times 12 months/years equals 48 billion dollars a year. And that's just to pay these people. That doesn't count any of the money that would have to be spent to train, equip, feed, clothe, house, and generally support these millions of troops.
We'll leave aside the whole issue of the precipitous plunge in quality if you quit letting in a few more people w/ Geddes and start whole sale importing people who flat out have no desire to join the military, giving them basic training, and then kicking them out after two years. The bottom line is we have the soldiers we need to win a real war. We stomped Saddam Hussein in no time flat with much less troops than most people predicted would be necessary. Remember 2003 and the initial push? It's tying up the military garrisoning and policing a country that's a hop, skip, and a jump away from a civil war that is straining our resources.
For starters, the draft operated on a lottery system based on the number of troops the military determined it needed at that time. We've never drafted 100% of those eligible. With a draft, the military can also be selective about who they determine to take. Also, with a draft the families of politicians would be eligible for the military and getting shot at. That might cause a few politicians to think a little more seriously before committing us to war.
Further, if a large number of youths serve a couple of years in the military, and maybe others serve some time in other forms of service to their country, we'd have a larger ready reserve to tap into if they're ever needed for actual war.
We fought Vietnam with a draft and we didn't need to hire mercenaries. We didn't need them in Korea or WWI or II. Ending the draft after Vietnam was a stupid mistake. We need to correct it.
Bob
Post by: BrokenPaw on October 03, 2007, 09:23:31 AM
As somebody who's been stop-lossed twice in his military career, that ain't no fun.
Ever see a piece of paper with your enlistment temporarily extended to 2038 ? I still to this day have no idea why that was put on my paperwork. My IRR time expires this December. I don't worry about it, but...
Never, never sign to military job description that is essential, rare and in high demand.
That was likely because of a specific computer error. Unix computers store a date/time value as a number of seconds since Midnight, January 1, 1970. They use a 32-bit signed value to store the seconds, which means that this counter rolls over at 2038/01/19 03:14:07. Probably some foolish programmer interpreted a negative value wrong, and gave you a 30+ year reenlistment.
-BP
Post by: CAnnoneer on October 03, 2007, 12:12:45 PM
As far as conscription goes, I agree it will be expensive and I don't see how useful it would be militarily. People think of conscription models that are well over 50 years old, probably some as far back as WW1. In WW1 mentality, the projection of force in the field of battle was based on infantry riflemen, supported by artillery and mobile units. Thus it was believed that more was always better. In addition, the slow speed of tactical troop movement, mostly by foot, meant that large armies were necessary to cover wide geographic fronts to prevent flanking manovers and maintain supply lines.
However, technological advances, e.g. rapid-firing artillery and machineguns, actually devalued the massed infantry and caused huge losses in personnel in the battlefield. That resulted in the stalemate of trench warfare, which ironically still required large numbers of troops, to man trenches stretching hundreds of miles. The stalemate was broken by technological developments, chiefly tanks, but also mechanised infantry and ground-assault aircraft. The new-found mobility and striking power meant a numerically inferior but mobile and organizationally superior, coordinated army would win, which is essentially the idea of the blitzkrieg, as best demonstrated by the French collapse in 1940 and the early encirclements on the East Front.
Nowadays, tactical weaponry is even more destructive, while mobility is much higher, and communications, organization, and coordination have become a complex art of its own. Thus more troops which are very inexperienced and untrained, will not accomplish much more on the battlefield, in fact they are likely to get themselves killed in far greater numbers accomplishing much less.
The only place where I can think numbers would be a significant advantage would be military police operations for holding and policing territory, or battlefield operations in environments where modern tech cannot be fully brought to bear. This analysis is supported by the massive conversion of other units into MP, which has been going on since the invasion in Iraq.
To recap, conscription will be expensive and inefficient, while bringing only very modest military benefit in very specific cases.
Post by: Len Budney on October 03, 2007, 12:56:23 PM
I don't see why mercs cannot have their place in the overall tapestry of force...
Just a note: the libertarian position has no problem with mercenaries per se. If defense and law enforcement are privatized, then all agents of force are "mercenaries." But libertarian society enforces a crucial distinction: security and defense workers have no power or authority above any other citizen. They can confiscate property from thieves, and they can use lethal force in self-defense or in apprehending a suspect--but so can anyone else, and like anyone else, the security worker must be prepared to shoulder the burden of proof that he was acting lawfully.
What makes mercs dangerous is that when governments hire them, they grant them special immunities similar to cops and soldiers, but exercise much less oversight than the police or military. Power + Immunity - Oversight = Very, Very Bad.
--Len.
Post by: Tallpine on October 03, 2007, 02:08:54 PM
Quote
When did we become Imperialists?
It was a gradual thing. You weren't supposed to notice.
Post by: RevDisk on October 04, 2007, 05:45:31 AM
That was likely because of a specific computer error. Unix computers store a date/time value as a number of seconds since Midnight, January 1, 1970. They use a 32-bit signed value to store the seconds, which means that this counter rolls over at 2038/01/19 03:14:07. Probably some foolish programmer interpreted a negative value wrong, and gave you a 30+ year reenlistment.
-BP
-BP
It'll effect all POSIX time representation, not just Unix. It'll be quite an issue in three decades for embedded systems. I always found it amusing that when it wraps around, it'll wrap to Friday the 13, Dec 1901, not 1/1/1901. Thankfully, it's starting to be addressed now. Virtually all 64 bit systems are using a signed 64-bit value in time_t. Which would wrap around in 300 billion years.
Actually, the explaination I got was that it was a temporary extension until my manditory retirement age. It works out either way. I'm not sure which reasoning would be more unsettling.
Post by: BrokenPaw on October 04, 2007, 05:58:26 AM
Quote
Actually, the explaination I got was that it was a temporary extension until my manditory retirement age. It works out either way. I'm not sure which reasoning would be more unsettling.
The unsettling part is that your mandatory retirement age coincidentally matches up nicely with the POSIX EOTWAWKI.
Is there something that RevMom would like to tell us about her past? Perhaps a lone cybernetic warrior sent from the future to protect her from the T-1000? Only she fell in love with it? And got pregnant? And it turns out that SkyNet didn't take the POSIX date problem into account? And you're a genetic time bomb?
Well. I, for one, welcome our cybernetic RevDisk overlords.
, BP
Post by: RevDisk on October 04, 2007, 06:06:06 AM
Quote
Actually, the explaination I got was that it was a temporary extension until my manditory retirement age. It works out either way. I'm not sure which reasoning would be more unsettling.
The unsettling part is that your mandatory retirement age coincidentally matches up nicely with the POSIX EOTWAWKI.
Is there something that RevMom would like to tell us about her past? Perhaps a lone cybernetic warrior sent from the future to protect her from the T-1000? Only she fell in love with it? And got pregnant? And it turns out that SkyNet didn't take the POSIX date problem into account? And you're a genetic time bomb?
Well. I, for one, welcome our cybernetic RevDisk overlords.
, BPUm, I guess now would not be a good time to point out I was born on D-Day, June 6. And that my birthday last year was 06/06/06 ?
Post by: Paddy on October 04, 2007, 06:47:48 AM
Post by: Len Budney on October 04, 2007, 07:05:41 AM
Here's an idea-let's just privatize the entire U.S. military. Disband all the branches and dissolve the Defense Dept. Hire 'private contractors' on an as needed basis. Some third world country need an asskicking? ...
You'll never convince private citizens to pay voluntarily for a foreign "asskicking." Which is precisely why it's such a good idea. Defense IS possible on a voluntary basis--that's how the country came to be in the first place. But imperialism is completely impossible on a voluntary basis.
Quote
Lowest bidder gets the contract.
That suggestion involves two parts: "lowest bidder" and "winner take all"--i.e., THE contract, as if there were only one. Both of those concepts are meaningful only in the context of socialized defense. In a free market there are multiple providers of a service, and people decide on lots of factors other than price. If the lowest bidder took all, then Taco Bell would be the only restaurant left in business.
Suffice it to say that privatized defense would work very differently than "Taco Bell über alles."
--Len.
Post by: RJMcElwain on October 04, 2007, 07:45:30 AM
You'll never convince private citizens to pay voluntarily for a foreign "asskicking." Which is precisely why it's such a good idea. Defense IS possible on a voluntary basis--that's how the country came to be in the first place. But imperialism is completely impossible on a voluntary basis.
Len.
There are some that would tell you that the oil industry kind of "hired" our government military to invade Iraq in order to secure the oil. How would that be different from hiring Blackwater to secure the oil for Exxon?
Bob
Post by: Len Budney on October 04, 2007, 08:03:22 AM
You'll never convince private citizens to pay voluntarily for a foreign "asskicking." Which is precisely why it's such a good idea. Defense IS possible on a voluntary basis--that's how the country came to be in the first place. But imperialism is completely impossible on a voluntary basis.
There are some that would tell you that the oil industry kind of "hired" our government military to invade Iraq in order to secure the oil. How would that be different from hiring Blackwater to secure the oil for Exxon?
Excellent question. The difference is that a private security contractor is not above the law; government soldiers are. When Blackwater is hired by the government, we get the worst of both worlds: government gives its contractor immunity from law; but as a "private" entity, there's practically no government oversight either. The result is an armed group accountable to nobody.
--Len.
Post by: Paddy on October 04, 2007, 09:15:02 AM
Quote
Excellent question. The difference is that a private security contractor is not above the law; government soldiers are. When Blackwater is hired by the government, we get the worst of both worlds: government gives its contractor immunity from law; but as a "private" entity, there's practically no government oversight either. The result is an armed group accountable to nobody.
Wait a minute. I thought you were all for privatization of everything, now you're concerned with accountability. I thought the 'free market' magically took care of that so there is no need for government oversight.
Post by: Len Budney on October 04, 2007, 09:25:53 AM
Wait a minute. I thought you were all for privatization of everything, now you're concerned with accountability.
Sure. That's not a contradiction. You're a private individual, for example, and I approve of that--but you're also accountable as well: if you attack me, I will shoot you. That's what makes you different from a cop, say: if a cop attacks me and I shoot him, I'm in a world of trouble, because he has special government powers and protections. Blackwater employees are not private employees, because they too have special government powers and protections. If I shot one of them in self-defense, I'd probably be headed for Gitmo.
Compare that with the Pinkertons. If I shot a Pinkerton in self-defense, I'd have to prove that it was self-defense, just like any other self-defense case. But the judicial process wouldn't be stacked against me, and his fellow Pinkertons would not get away with claiming I hung myself in my cell after savagely beating, tazing and pepper-spraying myself.
Quote
I thought the 'free market' magically took care of that so there is no need for government oversight.
I'm not advocating government "oversight"; I'm advocating the same libertarian justice system for everyone. Government employees are above the justice system, but at least they're under some sort of oversight. Blackwater employees are above the justice system and without government oversight. The government protects them, but makes practically no effort to control them. As I said, it's the worst of both worlds. They're what cops would be if there were no civilian review, no IAB, no higher agencies and commissioners weren't elected: completely unaccountable and out of control.
--Len.
Post by: CAnnoneer on October 04, 2007, 09:27:19 AM
Wait a minute. I thought you were all for privatization of everything, now you're concerned with accountability. I thought the 'free market' magically took care of that so there is no need for government oversight.
Pure libertarianism and pure laissez-faire sound good on paper but cannot survive contact with reality, and human nature in particular.
Post by: Len Budney on October 04, 2007, 09:31:36 AM
Pure libertarianism and pure laissez-faire sound good on paper but cannot survive contact with reality, and human nature in particular.
I don't agree. Suppose that (1) there were two police departments in your town, and (2) it were clearly understood that cops have no powers or immunities above any other citizen. Under those circumstances, try and imagine police brutality flourishing. Everyone is free to sign on with the PD of their choice, and one of its functions is to protect its clients from the other PD.
--Len.
Post by: Paddy on October 04, 2007, 09:45:35 AM
Quote
Sure. That's not a contradiction. You're a private individual, for example, and I approve of that--but you're also accountable as well: if you attack me, I will shoot you. That's what makes you different from a cop, say: if a cop attacks me and I shoot him, I'm in a world of trouble, because he has special government powers and protections. Blackwater employees are not private employees, because they too have special government powers and protections. If I shot one of them in self-defense, I'd probably be headed for Gitmo.
Compare that with the Pinkertons. If I shot a Pinkerton in self-defense, I'd have to prove that it was self-defense, just like any other self-defense case. But the judicial process wouldn't be stacked against me, and his fellow Pinkertons would not get away with claiming I hung myself in my cell after savagely beating, tazing and pepper-spraying myself.
Compare that with the Pinkertons. If I shot a Pinkerton in self-defense, I'd have to prove that it was self-defense, just like any other self-defense case. But the judicial process wouldn't be stacked against me, and his fellow Pinkertons would not get away with claiming I hung myself in my cell after savagely beating, tazing and pepper-spraying myself.
Rather than explain how the 'free market' provides accountability, you change the subject with hypotheticals verging on the hysteria of an imagined 'worst case scenario'.
Quote
I don't agree. Suppose that (1) there were two police departments in your town, and (2) it were clearly understood that cops have no powers or immunities above any other citizen. Under those circumstances, try and imagine police brutality flourishing. Everyone is free to sign on with the PD of their choice, and one of its functions is to protect its clients from the other PD.
Another non sequitur hypothetical. Towns don't have two police departments.
Post by: Len Budney on October 04, 2007, 09:50:51 AM
Rather than explain how the 'free market' provides accountability...
I did explain exactly how the free market provides accountability. I'm sitting here in a booth drinking sweet tea, with a Bianchi IWB holster at 4 o'clock, an SW9VE loaded with jacketed hollowpoints, and a spare magazine at 8 o'clock next to my cell phone. I have quite literally got your accountability right here.
I can of course contract with a security service, but as my agents they would have no more nor less power than I do to defend me. Namely, I'd expect them to be armed and aware. The specific arrangements could be infinite. I could give them my house keys, or install silent alarms, or have them on call, or any number of other arrangements. But they all amount to the same thing: I am delegating my own personal power to defend myself against attack onto an agent hired for the purpose. The agency is literally equivalent to the 9mm currently inside my waistband at 4 o'clock.
Quote
Another non sequitur hypothetical. Towns don't have two police departments.
That's right, because government is a monopolist. Private security, however, is not. Therefore free-market security precisely fits my description. Nothing non-sequiturial about it.
--Len.
Post by: Paddy on October 04, 2007, 10:17:23 AM
Quote
I did explain exactly how the free market provides accountability. I'm sitting here in a booth drinking sweet tea, with a Bianchi IWB holster at 4 o'clock, an SW9VE loaded with jacketed hollowpoints, and a spare magazine at 8 o'clock next to my cell phone. I have quite literally got your accountability right here.
So, free market accountability is assured by each individual simply shooting whoever might threaten or attempt to coerce them? IOW, in your scenario, two guys with MP5's walk in the door and accuse you of screwing them on a business deal. They claim you misrepresented your product and came to kill you. As proud as you obviously are of your defense setup, you're nonetheless outgunned, so you wind up dead.
No other oversight or independent judgement, just each individual's 'opinion'. Yeah, Len. That'll work.
Post by: Len Budney on October 04, 2007, 10:41:43 AM
So, free market accountability is assured by each individual simply shooting whoever might threaten or attempt to coerce them?
You're asking for McAnswers to your questions. That puts pressure on me to boil answers down to sound-bytes for you, but this inevitably leads to your criticizing my laconic answers for their lack of detail. To try and address that, here's a longer answer. Please realize, however, that you're asking for short answers to long questions.
My reference to the autoloader I'm carrying at the moment is in fact a condensation of all of Locke's best arguments (and none of his bad ones) into one sound byte. Namely, the foundation of all justice rests not on social contract but on the right of self-defense. Everyone is morally entitled to defend himself, and is morally forbidden to initiate aggression or other non-defensive force. Any and all institutions of "justice" proceed directly from this axiom: an officer can defend me, if he has my permission to do so, using neither more nor less force than I am permitted to use personally in my own defense. In particular, he can't "defend" me against my will, and he can't initiate aggression or other non-defensive force in my name, with or without my consent.
The rest is detail. It's permissible to sell one's services as a security guard; that's simply subcontracting my own self-defense. The myriad of security services fall under the same heading, whether it's patrolling, alarm systems, security cameras, lighting, structural hardening, or anything else. As long as it involves no force except defensive force, it's moral, legal and permitted. Communities can and will produce very different institutions. In the west this might resemble a private version of the familiar "court" system. In Somalia, it would probably be based on the Xeer. Libertarian muslims might go to an imam for judgment; libertarian bedouin to their sheikh; etc. When you ask for a direct analogue of the current American legal system, you're asking the wrong question; it can and probably would work somewhat differently.
Which leaves one loose end:
Quote
IOW, in your scenario, two guys with MP5's walk in the door and accuse you of screwing them on a business deal. They claim you misrepresented your product and came to kill you... No other oversight or independent judgement, just each individual's 'opinion'.
You're raising the valid question how disputes are resolved when both parties claim to be acting in self-defense, say. That's where 6,000 years of human civilization (almost all of it predating the "state") kicks in. I with my Kalashnikov and my plumber with his MP5 realize, before we resort to a gunfight, that we each have brothers, uncles and cousins, not to mention security agencies and life insurance. The insurance companies will want to avoid a payout by proving that the insured was guilty of a crime; the defense agencies are contractually obligated to sort out the dispute and prosecute murder; and if all else fails, our respective relatives are willing to avenge our deaths.
So what happens next? Your question assumes that this will inevitably lead to a feud, until one or the other clan is exterminated. You take the Hobbesian view that, unless some external authority steps in, society must collapse into a war of all against all. That's certainly one possibility. Hobbes believed it.
Yet human history has been surprisingly lacking in Hobbesian war. Why might that be? Simply put, people realize that feuding is bloody and expensive. Human tribes everywhere have learned instead, to submit most of their disputes to a binding mediation process. Today, when my plumber and I can't agree, our respective clans have a vested interest in avoiding a feud. The only way to do that is to submit our dispute for mediation. If we refuse mediation and one of us kills the other, the survivor's clan will usually submit to arbitration to determine whether the killing was murder or self-defense, and will allow the killer to suffer the punishment rather than embroil itself in a feud likely to leave many brothers, uncles and cousins dead.
The exact institution for resolving the conflict will vary, because that's the way with free markets. One size does not fit all.
--Len.
Post by: CAnnoneer on October 04, 2007, 11:57:12 AM
One of the problems with libertarian purist theories is that they simply refuse to understand why gov has evolved in human society. Gov evolved because it became necessary, not because some Statist Ex Machina willed it into being and coerced everybody to accept it. Gov provides stability where human numbers are too great for self-organization and personal initiative to suffice. That is why gov is dangerous, even oppressive in a small community, but essentially indispensible in larger communities. The critical turning point is arguable and is dependent on culture, geography, and technological level, but its very existence is not.
Also, your own line of reasoning would inevitably produce the Hobbesian war if simply extrapolated. A group beats an individual, a clan beats a group, a tribe beats a clan, a nation beats a tribe, etc. As you can see, human society naturally gravitates towards higher forms of organization as a tool of self-preservation. Any lesser organization generally succumbs to and is eliminated by or absorbed by any higher organization. When rival organizations are about equally matched, they generally establish a low-intensity conflict and wait for a better chance. Turn the crank and you will ultimately produce a small number of advanced organizations, which will eventually eliminate one another because of fluctuations in their parity. When only one organization is left, they become the central government. Its rules become the laws.
So, in your terminology, Hobbesian wars happen all the time, but are generally resolved quickly and violently between mismatched opponents, or they simmer in the background among equally-matched opponents waiting for a better opportunity.
Moreover, at every stage of human societal development, the highest organizational level generally matched the geography and technology of the time. Increases in human density and improvement in communications have invariably increased the radius of power projection and thus of any individual government. Therein the danger of oppressive remote gov. However, the solution is not to demolish the gov (futile - it will reemerge), but to steer it in a benign direction.
Post by: Len Budney on October 04, 2007, 12:04:35 PM
Len, you reasoned yourself from "market and individual decide" to "mediation". Congratulations, you derived the need for some sort of government or central authority that does the mediation.
You're making a leap here. Who says the mediator has to be "government" or "central"? It doesn't. Indeed, it can't be. When the "government" is one of the litigants, how can it claim the right to mediate the dispute? Obviously, when one sues a mediator, one can't submit the dispute to him for resolution!
Quote
One of the problems with libertarian purist theories is that they simply refuse to understand why gov has evolved in human society.
Actually that question has been addressed, by Hans Hoppe among others. In a nutshell: the earliest mammals evolved a herd structure because (1) cooperation confers a survival advantage, and (2) early mammals were too stupid to cooperate purposely. Thus they evolved a mindless form of cooperation that we know as a "herd." This persisted through the great apes, which can fairly be described as tribal, and from them to humans. We're tribal because we evolved from herd animals. Government is what you get when the tribal structure is preserved in an increasingly-complex society.
In short, government exists because we do indeed have common ancestors with the sheep. We're smart enough to invent better things than tribes, but most of us yield instead to the herd instinct that evolution saddled us with.
--Len.
Post by: CAnnoneer on October 04, 2007, 12:13:36 PM
We're tribal because we evolved from herd animals. Government is what you get when the tribal structure is preserved in an increasingly-complex society. In short, government exists because we do indeed have common ancestors with the sheep. We're smart enough to invent better things than tribes, but most of us yield instead to the herd instinct that evolution saddled us with.
I like ripping on the sheeple as well. But, the reality is more complicated - see the expansion to my previous post.
Post by: Len Budney on October 04, 2007, 12:17:18 PM
We're tribal because we evolved from herd animals. Government is what you get when the tribal structure is preserved in an increasingly-complex society. In short, government exists because we do indeed have common ancestors with the sheep. We're smart enough to invent better things than tribes, but most of us yield instead to the herd instinct that evolution saddled us with.
I like ripping on the sheeple as well. But, the reality is more complicated - see the expansion to my previous post.
The explanation in your post is incorrect. Your first paragraph asserts without proof that government is "indispensable," which simply begs the question. Your second paragraph asserts without proof that Hobbesian war is inevitable, but there are lots of counterexamples to disprove that claim. The final paragraph makes the dubious claim that the greatest centralization corresponds with the greatest progress. The Soviet Union is a decent counterexample. As is the US: her periods of greatest prosperity have been her times of greatest freedom, not greatest centralization.
As for my observation, it's not "ripping on sheeple." Do you dispute the fact that we are indeed descended from a long line of herd animals? It's not really open to argument that we inherited our group instinct from a shrew-like ancestor 65 million years ago. The only debatable question is whether the herd or tribe can be improved upon. But the fact that we've always done things that way does nothing to advance the case; we've done it since before we left the trees or started using tools. We didn't exactly weigh all the alternatives carefully.
--Len.
Post by: CAnnoneer on October 04, 2007, 12:21:18 PM
You're making a leap here. Who says the mediator has to be "government" or "central"? It doesn't. Indeed, it can't be. When the "government" is one of the litigants, how can it claim the right to mediate the dispute? Obviously, when one sues a mediator, one can't submit the dispute to him for resolution!
Yes, that is a problem. "Who is watching the watcher?"
For me, the solution is to realize that gov is a compilation of bureaucrats. When a particular bureaucrat screws up, he should be the one to burn. Dumping the responsibility on "gov" as a whole means the particular perp can get away with it. He does it on purpose and likes it that way, because then people do not punish him but back down and simmer against the "gov".
So, my advice is, don't play into the perp's hand. Expose the louse. The other bureaucrats will burn him, if for no other reason than securing themselves. The problem only appears when ALL of them or at least a critical number are all perps. Thankfully, we are not there yet, and if the sheeple understand that, they can still delouse the system. So, you have your work cut out for you. Go forth and de-sheeple your fellow constituents. I have been doing this for a long time now.
Post by: Len Budney on October 04, 2007, 12:29:24 PM
You're making a leap here. Who says the mediator has to be "government" or "central"? It doesn't. Indeed, it can't be. When the "government" is one of the litigants, how can it claim the right to mediate the dispute? Obviously, when one sues a mediator, one can't submit the dispute to him for resolution!
Yes, that is a problem. "Who is watching the watcher?"
I agree with Jefferson (though he didn't take the argument far enough). The ultimate protection of the individual's freedom is the individual himself, armed and vigilant. Any concession of special powers or immunities to anyone severely undermines that defense: one is accepting the manifest contradiction that one must defend oneself from the cops, yet isn't allowed to do so.
Quote
For me, the solution is to realize that gov is a compilation of bureaucrats. When a particular bureaucrat screws up, he should be the one to burn. Dumping the responsibility on "gov" as a whole means the particular perp can get away with it. He does it on purpose and likes it that way, because then people do not punish him but back down and simmer against the "gov".
But by accepting the right of an agent of force to exist, with special powers you don't have, you've already given the whole game away. The USA PATRIOT act and the MCA were a done deal when the Constitution was inked. Once the machinery of power is created, freedom is doomed.
Quote
The problem only appears when ALL of them or at least a critical number are all perps. Thankfully, we are not there yet, and if the sheeple understand that, they can still delouse the system. So, you have your work cut out for you. Go forth and de-sheeple your fellow constituents. I have been doing this for a long time now.
I'm trying. When a majority wake up realizing that "government" does go away when you ignore it--as long as enough people ignore it--then the people will be de-sheepled.
Too many people have chosen to support their existence by forcible predation on their fellow man, though. Those people, which you call "bureaucrats," will put up a fight. Hopefully we can convince them all to give up quietly and get an honest job.
--Len.
Post by: CAnnoneer on October 04, 2007, 12:38:43 PM
The explanation in your post is incorrect. Your first paragraph asserts without proof that government is "indispensable," which simply begs the question.
First I state, then I explain. Nothing wrong with that.
Quote
Your second paragraph asserts without proof that Hobbesian war is inevitable, but there are lots of counterexamples to disprove that claim.
Please provide the counterexamples. I am convinced that power struggles exist at every level of societal organization, down to a family of two. Only Robinson Crusoe is not a subject to such, but he immediately got sucked back in when the savages and Friday entered his life.
Quote
The final paragraph makes the dubious claim that the greatest centralization corresponds with the greatest progress. The Soviet Union is a decent counterexample. As is the US: her periods of greatest prosperity have been her times of greatest freedom, not greatest centralization.
You define "success" inconsistently. The "success" of an organization is the extent of its control w.r.t. rival organizations. It might or might not correlate with economic, military, or political success at all, although it generally does. Our current gov is much more "successful" in this Dawkinsian sense than its historical predecessors. The same analysis can be applied to religions, which also do not necessarily correlate that well with economics, military affairs, or politics.
Quote
Do you dispute the fact that we are indeed descended from a long line of herd animals? It's not really open to argument that we inherited our group instinct from a shrew-like ancestor 65 million years ago.
I do not dispute evolution; on the contrary, I use it very much in my argument. What I dispute is the conclusion that we maintain our social organization only because we are hard-wired herd animals. Moreover, narrowly taken, the argument is completely wrong. We certainly do not have the social organization of pre-historic men - isolated family groups of no more than 30 individuals. Instead, our social structure has evolved to match the environment, biology, and technology, to maximize the survival chances of genes. Read the "Selfish Gene" for a beautiful discussion on the subject.
Quote
The only debatable question is whether the herd or tribe can be improved upon. But the fact that we've always done things that way does nothing to advance the case; we've done it since before we left the trees or started using tools. We didn't exactly weigh all the alternatives carefully.
There may be more efficient ways to organize, but I doubt it very much. Every attempt at large-scale pre-meditated social engineering historically has collapsed relatively quickly, and society has reverted to a form matching the ambient conditions best.
Post by: CAnnoneer on October 04, 2007, 12:50:13 PM
The ultimate protection of the individual's freedom is the individual himself, armed and vigilant.
I agree. That is something that must be maintained, by steering the gov that way through the electoral process.
Quote
Any concession of special powers or immunities to anyone severely undermines that defense: one is accepting the manifest contradiction that one must defend oneself from the cops, yet isn't allowed to do so.
What are the special powers and immunities you speak of? Be more concrete. Also, you are certainly allowed to defend yourself against bad cops. Cops and bureaucrats are not the gov, they are just individual agents of gov. If you refuse to treat them as individuals, you forfeit to the perp.
Quote
But by accepting the right of an agent of force to exist, with special powers you don't have, you've already given the whole game away. The USA PATRIOT act and the MCA were a done deal when the Constitution was inked. Once the machinery of power is created, freedom is doomed.
Absolutely not. Voters can vote in candidates that can strike down any such law. Freedom is only doomed when the machinery is broken enough or people refuse to use a still-functioning machinery. I think we have much more of the latter than the former. We don't even get 50% to show up to vote in this country, while most races are decided by a few percent at most - enough said.
Quote
When a majority wake up realizing that "government" does go away when you ignore it--as long as enough people ignore it--then the people will be de-sheepled.
Gov never goes away. Somebody is always in charge. This is something you must internalize. The real question is who is in charge and what they are doing. Also, you cannot get gov to go away by ignoring it. Just try to ignore the police or IRS or NSA; it does not work.
Quote
Too many people have chosen to support their existence by forcible predation on their fellow man, though. Those people, which you call "bureaucrats," will put up a fight. Hopefully we can convince them all to give up quietly and get an honest job.
The parasytes always need a host. If the host allows the parasytes to remain, whose fault is that?
Post by: Len Budney on October 04, 2007, 12:59:31 PM
Quote
Your second paragraph asserts without proof that Hobbesian war is inevitable, but there are lots of counterexamples to disprove that claim.
Please provide the counterexamples. I am convinced that power struggles exist at every level of societal organization, down to a family of two.
Depends what you mean by that. If you're saying that people disagree, fine--but disagreement only becomes a libertarian problem when it involves initiation of aggression. To suggest that violent conflict exists at all levels is simply not reasonable. Examples abound:
* The so-called "Wild West" was not so wild after all. On the frontier where government hadn't yet penetrated, people worked out peaceful arrangements nothing like a John Wayne movie.
* The Pennsylvania colony existed in a state of anarchy for several years.
* Somalia is no Utopia--but without a state, it's doing considerably better than its neighbors.
* Protesters at Tiananmen Square constructed and operated a successful anarchist society for two months. (Ironically, they gathered to demand democracy, and seem not to have appreciated that they were actually enacting something better.)
* Whenever people come to a four-way stop sign, or wait for a bus, or spread a beach towel, they demonstrate non-violent conflict resolution.
Quote
The final paragraph makes the dubious claim that the greatest centralization corresponds with the greatest progress. The Soviet Union is a decent counterexample. As is the US: her periods of greatest prosperity have been her times of greatest freedom, not greatest centralization.
You define "success" inconsistently. The "success" of an organization is the extent of its control w.r.t. rival organizations.
[/quote]
That definition is singularly slanted in favor of the state: if "success" is roughly defined as "power," especially coercive power, then yes--totalitarian societies are the most "successful." But who cares?
Quote
It might or might not correlate with economic, military, or political success at all, although it generally does. Our current gov is much more "successful" in this Dawkinsian sense than its historical predecessors.
And the Third Reich was even more successful. So what? If that's "success," give me failure.
Quote
Quote
Do you dispute the fact that we are indeed descended from a long line of herd animals? It's not really open to argument that we inherited our group instinct from a shrew-like ancestor 65 million years ago.
I do not dispute evolution; on the contrary, I use it very much in my argument. What I dispute is the conclusion that we maintain our social organization only because we are hard-wired herd animals.
I didn't say "only." But if you drop the "only," what's left is absolutely indisputable.
Quote
Moreover, narrowly taken, the argument is completely wrong. We certainly do not have the social organization of pre-historic men - isolated family groups of no more than 30 individuals. Instead, our social structure has evolved to match the environment, biology, and technology, to maximize the survival chances of genes. Read the "Selfish Gene" for a beautiful discussion on the subject.
It's an elaborate version of the tribal structure. Literally, empires evolved from kingdoms, which evolved from city-states, which evolved from tribes, which evolved from families. The general layout of all are identical. The latter are merely bigger and more elaborate.
What you can't claim is that we've tried anything else. Arguably, we couldn't have tried anything else prior to the 19th century: before that, practically everyone hovered on the brink of starvation. A handful of the most hardened anarchists might resort to a tribal structure in a survival situation.
Quote
Quote
The only debatable question is whether the herd or tribe can be improved upon. But the fact that we've always done things that way does nothing to advance the case; we've done it since before we left the trees or started using tools. We didn't exactly weigh all the alternatives carefully.
There may be more efficient ways to organize, but I doubt it very much. Every attempt at large-scale pre-meditated social engineering historically has collapsed relatively quickly...
Yup. What hasn't been tried is unpremeditated, non-engineered, decentralized society. I don't know of any libertarians (or anarcho capitalists) who suggest that a centrally-designed society is a workable idea. The free market is the antithesis of that.
--Len.
Post by: Len Budney on October 04, 2007, 01:13:56 PM
The ultimate protection of the individual's freedom is the individual himself, armed and vigilant.
I agree. That is something that must be maintained, by steering the gov that way through the electoral process.
OK, now lets think that through.
"Mr. President, I insist that you protect my right to keep and bear arms! After all, how else can I shoot you if you turn tyrannical?"
"Um, yeah. Let me get right on that."
Quote
Quote
Any concession of special powers or immunities to anyone severely undermines that defense: one is accepting the manifest contradiction that one must defend oneself from the cops, yet isn't allowed to do so.
What are the special powers and immunities you speak of? Be more concrete.
In general, the fact that shooting a government official in self-defense is automatically a crime. Specifically, if I demand 10% of your income and enter your home armed to take it, you're allowed to shoot me. If a man with a badge of office does exactly the same, not only aren't you allowed to defend yourself, but if you try you'll find your home surrounded by tanks. Similarly, if I decide that I don't want you smoking in your own dining room, and I attempt to force you at gunpoint to comply, you can defend yourself against me. If a man with a badge of office takes the same action, you can't--and again, he's backed by an army. You know, that sort of thing.
Quote
Also, you are certainly allowed to defend yourself against bad cops.
Where "bad cop" includes any cop who tries to enforce laws against victimless crimes? So if, for example, I'm distilling schnapps for my own consumption, and a bad cop enters my home and tries to kidnap me for doing so, I'm allowed to defend myself? I didn't know that.
Quote
Quote
But by accepting the right of an agent of force to exist, with special powers you don't have, you've already given the whole game away. The USA PATRIOT act and the MCA were a done deal when the Constitution was inked. Once the machinery of power is created, freedom is doomed.
Absolutely not. Voters can vote in candidates that can strike down any such law.
There's a rich literature on why that can't happen in the long run. Empirically, try to find a government that hasn't steadily grown. Abstractly, it can't be done because the special interests are concentrated and the victims are dispersed. For example, if a senator decides to give me $300M for doing the nation the great favor of "just being me," I'm big in favor of that. That's only $1 from everyone in the country, though. Are you willing to start AmRevII over $1? Are you even willing to sue me? Let alone run for office or campaign to through out the bum who gave me the grant? No, you aren't.
Of course the government does that thousands of times over, and it does add up to real money, but targeted action against a particular bit of corruption will still only save you coffee money. Your choices are to take it up the tailpipe, or start shooting the bastards. The latter is even more expensive than the former--and dangerous to boot. You will not revolt. Meanwhile, the idealists in government dwindle over time because they can't compete with the scoundrels. The former have complicated ideas that involve actually thinking and stuff. The latter "feel yore pain." The latter will always win in the long run, just as the ruthless will always defeat the scrupulous.
Quote
Quote
When a majority wake up realizing that "government" does go away when you ignore it--as long as enough people ignore it--then the people will be de-sheepled.
Gov never goes away. Somebody is always in charge.
Government wants you to think that, certainly. But it clearly isn't true. If you choose to live as a free man, nothing stops you (except armed bureaucrats). If enough people choose to live as free men, the armed bureaucrats don't stand a chance.
Quote
Quote
Too many people have chosen to support their existence by forcible predation on their fellow man, though. Those people, which you call "bureaucrats," will put up a fight. Hopefully we can convince them all to give up quietly and get an honest job.
The parasytes always need a host. If the host allows the parasytes to remain, whose fault is that?
Whoops--you've just skipped a groove and decided you're an anarchist after all!
--Len.
Post by: CAnnoneer on October 04, 2007, 02:03:46 PM
Depends what you mean by that.
If you take Hobbes very literally, then I would disagree with him, because violent mutual annihilation is not "ecologically stable". But, taken in a more general sense, he was correct - gov is a means of safer conflict resolution.
Quote
The so-called "Wild West" was not so wild after all... Pennsylvania colony existed in a state of anarchy for several years... Somalia
Correct. It is not a good example of anarchy. It had local centers of authority. You pissed off a town? They would throw you out. You came back? They'd give you the necktie. You'd cross a gang? They'd shoot you dead. All perfect examples of a larger superior organization (township, gang, "the law") violently eliminating the competition (you as a misbehaving individual).
Penn existed for several years only. It seems the concept failed when put to the real test.
Somalia is an example that fits well in my framework - competing organizations (the different warlords, gangs, and tribal groups) have near-parity in power and thus refuse to exhaust themselves in pointless fighting, lest a third party take advantage. They are waiting one another out. If a single group gets enough advantage, they will become the single government.
Quote
Protesters at Tiananmen Squareconstructed and operated a successful anarchist society for two months. (Ironically, they gathered to demand democracy, and seem not to have appreciated that they were actually enacting something better.)
Successful how? Clearly not as an organization. The commie gov crushed them. Two months don't even register as a spit in the ocean of human history.
Quote
Whenever people come to a four-way stop sign, or wait for a bus, or spread a beach towel, they demonstrate non-violent conflict resolution.
Based on the rules enforced by the gov. Many people will do the polite thing because they are programmed that way, or to avoid conflict, or out of altruism (Dawkins has interesting things to say about altruism too). But, there are also violent individuals that will push their way through or step on your towel too. Your anarchistic society cannot deal with them. If you try to apply a force against them as an individual, if one of them is stronger than you, he will kill you. If he is not, he will gang up with others. Guess what, they just made an organization and formed a bandit government. You are history.
Quote
That definition is singularly slanted in favor of the state: if "success" is roughly defined as "power," especially coercive power, then yes--totalitarian societies are the most "successful." But who cares?
You should, if you want to avoid being crushed by one.
Quote
I didn't say "only." But if you drop the "only," what's left is absolutely indisputable.
Be honest. You heavily implied the "only". It is the center of your argument.
Quote
What you can't claim is that we've tried anything else. Arguably, we couldn't have tried anything else prior to the 19th century: before that, practically everyone hovered on the brink of starvation. A handful of the most hardened anarchists might resort to a tribal structure in a survival situation.
Many organizations have existed before 1900 - autarchy, hereditary monarchy, empire, triumvirate, republic, limited democracy, oligarchy, theocracy, constitutional monarchy. They were not really "tried", they evolved due to circumstantial pressures. As conditions changed, one replaced another. How different they ultimately are is subject of discussion.
Many people in the world hover around starvation today as well. The only ones that may allow themselves to toy with "something different" are societies that already are well-fed based on their own evolved organization. I am not convinced that "trying something different" will not revert us to near-starvation. It certainly did with the commies in the 1920s.
The anarchists would be smart to organize into non-anarchists. Otherwise they would likely starve.
Quote
Yup. What hasn't been tried is unpremeditated, non-engineered, decentralized society. I don't know of any libertarians (or anarcho capitalists) who suggest that a centrally-designed society is a workable idea. The free market is the antithesis of that.
Re-read what you just wrote and see the internal contradictions. You want to try something that is unpremeditated and non-engineered. If you do not meditate or engineer, how do you know what it is? How do you know what you have or want? The minute you describe what you are trying to do, it is engineered and premeditated.
If there is anything unpremeditated and non-engineered, that is human society from the early historical perspective. They did not sit down and plan it that way. They did what they could to stay alive. Those who hit upon successful models lived, those who did not, died. Literally you are right - they did not "try it", but historically you are wrong - such societies did exist and evolved into being.
Post by: Paddy on October 04, 2007, 02:05:35 PM
Quote
What hasn't been tried is unpremeditated, non-engineered, decentralized society.
Sure it has. Been around for centuries. It looks like this
Post by: Len Budney on October 04, 2007, 02:21:47 PM
Depends what you mean by that.
If you take Hobbes very literally, then I would disagree with him, because violent mutual annihilation is not "ecologically stable". But, taken in a more general sense, he was correct - gov is a means of safer conflict resolution.
Interesting. 6 million Jews, 10 million kulaks, 25 million Chinese peasants, a couple million Iraqi refugees and up to a million dead, would beg to differ if they could. Or do you mean "most of the time, when it isn't busy slaughtering people by the million, it's a safer way of resolving conflicts"?
Quote
Quote
The so-called "Wild West" was not so wild after all... Pennsylvania colony existed in a state of anarchy for several years... Somalia
Correct. It is not a good example of anarchy. It had local centers of authority.
It looks like we need to clear up a misconception about anarchy. Anarchy doesn't imply the absence of authority. An anarcho-capitalist society would positively bristle with authority structures. I agree that the institutions you mention were not perfectly anarchic, but they still illustrate the point. You initially claimed that government is indispensable; now it looks like whatever example I cite, you'll point to something within that society and label it "government." If so, you should notice that you're making a claim which can never be falsified.
Quote
Penn existed for several years only. It seems the concept failed when put to the real test.
Check the history. The predator class (what you call "bureaucrats") did manage to hoodwink the others and take over. I agree that the Pennsylvanians fell down: they should have strung them up.
Quote
Quote
Protesters at Tiananmen Squareconstructed and operated a successful anarchist society for two months. (Ironically, they gathered to demand democracy, and seem not to have appreciated that they were actually enacting something better.)
Successful how? Clearly not as an organization. The commie gov crushed them. Two months don't even register as a spit in the ocean of human history.
You've back to applying the statist definition of "success." It was a perfectly harmonious society. It did not fall to internal conflict as you claim it must have.
Quote
Quote
Whenever people come to a four-way stop sign, or wait for a bus, or spread a beach towel, they demonstrate non-violent conflict resolution.
Based on the rules enforced by the gov.
You're making a very strong claim, and I want you to pause and consider it. You're claiming that if we weren't all afraid of the government, instead of waiting in line for the bus I'd kill and eat the others. On what are you basing this? Introspection? Are you claiming that the only thing stopping you from murdering your neighbors is fear of arrest? If so, I'm glad I'm not your neighbor.
Quote
Many people will do the polite thing because they are programmed that way, or to avoid conflict, or out of altruism (Dawkins has interesting things to say about altruism too). But, there are also violent individuals that will push their way through or step on your towel too. Your anarchistic society cannot deal with them. If you try to apply a force against them as an individual, if one of them is stronger than you, he will kill you. If he is not, he will gang up with others. Guess what, they just made an organization and formed a bandit government. You are history.
That definition is singularly slanted in favor of the state: if "success" is roughly defined as "power," especially coercive power, then yes--totalitarian societies are the most "successful." But who cares?
You should, if you want to avoid being crushed by one.
Quote
That definition is singularly slanted in favor of the state: if "success" is roughly defined as "power," especially coercive power, then yes--totalitarian societies are the most "successful." But who cares?
You should, if you want to avoid being crushed by one.
Apparently you are saying that only the police stop you from a murderous rampage. That's spooky.
Quote
Quote
I didn't say "only." But if you drop the "only," what's left is absolutely indisputable.
Be honest. You heavily implied the "only". It is the center of your argument.
Nowhere near the center. Your argument implied that the durability of government demonstrates that it's the best way, as if we had tried and discarded the alternatives. I point out that a perfectly recognizable governmental structure has been our heritage since we were moles hiding from dinosaurs; it can hardly be said that we've seriously examined the alternatives. Such wasn't even possible until sometime in the last few thousand years, when man had both sufficient intelligence and sufficient technology to begin exploiting the division of labor.
Quote
Quote
What you can't claim is that we've tried anything else. Arguably, we couldn't have tried anything else prior to the 19th century: before that, practically everyone hovered on the brink of starvation. A handful of the most hardened anarchists might resort to a tribal structure in a survival situation.
Many organizations have existed before 1900 - autarchy, hereditary monarchy, empire, triumvirate, republic, limited democracy, oligarchy, theocracy, constitutional monarchy.
All indistinguishable. The only distinction on your list is whether the Archon had partners, and what sort of costume he wore.
Quote
Many people in the world hover around starvation today as well. The only ones that may allow themselves to toy with "something different" are societies that already are well-fed based on their own evolved organization. I am not convinced that "trying something different" will not revert us to near-starvation. It certainly did with the commies in the 1920s.
That statement is incoherent. Your argument that government is vital is that government nearly caused the extinction of its subjects in the 1920's?
Quote
The anarchists would be smart to organize into non-anarchists. Otherwise they would likely starve.
You appear again to be invoking the fallacy that anarchy equals chaos. That's wildly false.
Quote
Quote
Yup. What hasn't been tried is unpremeditated, non-engineered, decentralized society. I don't know of any libertarians (or anarcho capitalists) who suggest that a centrally-designed society is a workable idea. The free market is the antithesis of that.
Re-read what you just wrote and see the internal contradictions. You want to try something that is unpremeditated and non-engineered. If you do not meditate or engineer, how do you know what it is?
The Statist's Lament(tm).
--Len.
Post by: CAnnoneer on October 04, 2007, 02:22:14 PM
OK, now lets think that through. "Mr. President, I insist that you protect my right to keep and bear arms! After all, how else can I shoot you if you turn tyrannical?" "Um, yeah. Let me get right on that."
That is just more self-defeating whining. The electoral process is not broken yet. Get off your butt and today convince just one person in RKBA and convince him to convince others. Tomorrow do the same. And so on. There would be a geometric increase and soon you will have CCW in your city. Then proceed on the state, and eventually national level. What stops you from doing that?
But, if you prefer to sit on your butt, complain, and indulge in anarchist fantasies instead, while gungrabbers and sozies march on, then who is really to blame?
Quote
In general, the fact that shooting a government official in self-defense is automatically a crime. Specifically, if I demand 10% of your income and enter your home armed to take it, you're allowed to shoot me.
Not paying your taxes is not self-defense. It is breaking the law. You still can affect things through the electoral process. If instead you choose to murder LEOs in performance of their lawful duty, then be ready to seize control of the gov by force, or die in the process.
Quote
Where "bad cop" includes any cop who tries to enforce laws against victimless crimes? So if, for example, I'm distilling schnapps for my own consumption, and a bad cop enters my home and tries to kidnap me for doing so, I'm allowed to defend myself? I didn't know that.
See above. You obviously think that every law is somehow an encroachment on your person, if you disagree with it, then you complain that your reaction is illegal. If you do not care about laws, what do you care if it is legal or not? If in your model power decides everything, then you cannot complain when that power is used against you.
Quote
There's a rich literature on why that can't happen in the long run. Empirically, try to find a government that hasn't steadily grown. Abstractly, it can't be done because the special interests are concentrated and the victims are dispersed. For example, if a senator decides to give me $300M for doing the nation the great favor of "just being me," I'm big in favor of that. That's only $1 from everyone in the country, though. Are you willing to start AmRevII over $1? Are you even willing to sue me? Let alone run for office or campaign to through out the bum who gave me the grant? No, you aren't.
Of course the government does that thousands of times over, and it does add up to real money, but targeted action against a particular bit of corruption will still only save you coffee money. Your choices are to take it up the tailpipe, or start shooting the bastards. The latter is even more expensive than the former--and dangerous to boot. You will not revolt. Meanwhile, the idealists in government dwindle over time because they can't compete with the scoundrels. The former have complicated ideas that involve actually thinking and stuff. The latter "feel yore pain." The latter will always win in the long run, just as the ruthless will always defeat the scrupulous.
Of course the government does that thousands of times over, and it does add up to real money, but targeted action against a particular bit of corruption will still only save you coffee money. Your choices are to take it up the tailpipe, or start shooting the bastards. The latter is even more expensive than the former--and dangerous to boot. You will not revolt. Meanwhile, the idealists in government dwindle over time because they can't compete with the scoundrels. The former have complicated ideas that involve actually thinking and stuff. The latter "feel yore pain." The latter will always win in the long run, just as the ruthless will always defeat the scrupulous.
All of the above is just more whining to justify you sitting on your ass and producing more whining. Yeah, corruption has always been a problem, and so have been statists wanting to expand power. But, the system is not yet broken and voters STILL CAN vote out the bums. All you are whining about is that it is difficult. Tough. Tanstaafl.
Quote
Government wants you to think that, certainly. But it clearly isn't true. If you choose to live as a free man, nothing stops you (except armed bureaucrats). If enough people choose to live as free men, the armed bureaucrats don't stand a chance.
How exactly do you envision living as "a free man"? And more importantly, how do you envision "free men" defending against "armed bureaucrats" without becoming "armed bureaucrats"? See above discussion of the power of organizations.
Quote
Quote
The parasytes always need a host. If the host allows the parasytes to remain, whose fault is that?
Whoops--you've just skipped a groove and decided you're an anarchist after all! Right. Everyone who does not like lice must be an anarchist. <roll eyes>
Post by: Paddy on October 04, 2007, 02:31:36 PM
Quote
The predator class (what you call "bureaucrats") did manage to hoodwink the others and take over.
And therein lies the impetus behind the libertarian 'philosophy'. They grieve only that they are not the predators. If only that bothersome government, the one that protects the weak, the old, the infirm, were out of the way, the world would be theirs for the taking.
Libertarianism is, at its root, about predation. Nothing more.
Post by: CAnnoneer on October 04, 2007, 02:51:06 PM
Interesting. 6 million Jews, 10 million kulaks, 25 million Chinese peasants, a couple million Iraqi refugees and up to a million dead, would beg to differ if they could. Or do you mean "most of the time, when it isn't busy slaughtering people by the million, it's a safer way of resolving conflicts"?
No organization has ever survived by exterminating its members. The examples you give are examples of rival organizations engaging in violent power struggle to become or remain THE government. Nothing that is not covered in my model.
Moreover, endemic civil wars in Africa today show what happens when there is no single dominant government in a particular country - the resulting tribalism and constant warfare are bloodier in the long run.
Quote
Anarchy doesn't imply the absence of authority. An anarcho-capitalist society would positively bristle with authority structures.
What exactly does anarchy ("no authority") mean then? And what are these "power structures" other than rival organizations that will vie for power at the expense of everybody else? You want to destroy the central government and create a bunch of minigovs that will be just as dangerous, with the added "benefit" of them fighting one another. Why don't you move to Somalia then, or maybe Rwanda?
Quote
I agree that the institutions you mention were not perfectly anarchic, but they still illustrate the point. You initially claimed that government is indispensable; now it looks like whatever example I cite, you'll point to something within that society and label it "government." If so, you should notice that you're making a claim which can never be falsified.
I am not going to play semantics games. Gov means who is in charge. What is so difficult to understand about it? Yes, something or somebody will always be in charge. If they are in control, they are the government. The claim can be falsified by the unity set. An isolated individual can think he is the generalissimo and private, in fact every rank, of an army of one, but he needs his head examined.
Quote
Check the history. The predator class (what you call "bureaucrats") did manage to hoodwink the others and take over. I agree that the Pennsylvanians fell down: they should have strung them up.
Precisely. The concept failed when put to the test. What "should have" happened is academic. History is about what did happen.
Quote
You've back to applying the statist definition of "success." It was a perfectly harmonious society. It did not fall to internal conflict as you claim it must have.
"Wouldn't it be a beautiful world if only <hated category> did not exist?!" More wishful thinking. If you want to be taken seriously, you have to present a model that works when ALL natural parameters are enabled.
Quote
Apparently you are saying that only the police stop you from a murderous rampage. That's spooky.
You'll have to walk us through to that conclusion.
I live in the real world and know for a fact that there are people out there that will eat you alive if they had the chance. Yeah, go ahead, call it "projection" to attack me without really refuting my argument.
Quote
Your argument implied that the durability of government demonstrates that it's the best way, as if we had tried and discarded the alternatives.
It is the way that has been the most successful among what was "tried". You can come up with any pre-engineered utopia you want. Go ahead and try to convince others to try it, then live it and come back to tell us how it worked out. My money says you'll be dead within a short time.
Quote
Such wasn't even possible until sometime in the last few thousand years, when man had both sufficient intelligence and sufficient technology to begin exploiting the division of labor.
Exploiting the division of labor. Hmmm. How do you propose you do that without a gov to enforce contracts and take care of criminals? Again we are back to engineered utopian fantasies. I am all ears. Please tell us. But don't whine when we point out why those premeditated societies would fail.
Quote
You appear again to be invoking the fallacy that anarchy equals chaos. That's wildly false.
Fine. Explain your "structure" to us, and its enforcement/maintenance. In a non-premeditated, non-engineered way, please.
Post by: wooderson on October 04, 2007, 02:55:02 PM
Quote
No organization has ever survived by exterminating its members. The examples you give are examples of rival organizations engaging in violent power struggle to become or remain THE government. Nothing that is not covered in my model.
Really, no. The Holocaust and the deaths of the Great Leap Forward certainly were not "rival organizations" vying for power. They are instances of those in power abusing those under them - whether out of paranoia (the GLF) or megalomania (the Holocaust).
Post by: Len Budney on October 04, 2007, 02:56:27 PM
OK, now lets think that through. "Mr. President, I insist that you protect my right to keep and bear arms! After all, how else can I shoot you if you turn tyrannical?" "Um, yeah. Let me get right on that."
That is just more self-defeating whining. The electoral process is not broken yet.
It's not a whine: it's an absolutely conclusive argument. If you think you can construct a system that invests a man with ruling authority and then forces him to act against his own interests, you're crazy. Kennedy's comments on the 2nd Amendment actually did follow the pattern I gave, BTW.
Quote
Quote
In general, the fact that shooting a government official in self-defense is automatically a crime. Specifically, if I demand 10% of your income and enter your home armed to take it, you're allowed to shoot me.
Not paying your taxes is not self-defense. It is breaking the law.
Before even engaging your argument, consider carefully the implications of your making it at all. You are attempting to construct a framework within which it is justified to forcibly take another's property (what we call "stealing"), to force others to act according to our will (what we call "slavery"), and to imprison (i.e., "kidnap") or execute (i.e., "murder") anyone who refuses. Of course you've been taught all your life that that's the way it is--just as English people are taught all their lives that aristocrats are their superiors, or gorillas believe without question that the alpha male can take your women if he wants her.
But what justifies aggression against another?
Quote
You obviously think that every law is somehow an encroachment on your person, if you disagree with it...
NO. The laws against rape, murder or theft are binding whether or not I agree. Double-check, and you'll find that in every case I cited laws that punish me for harming nobody.
Quote
How exactly do you envision living as "a free man"? And more importantly, how do you envision "free men" defending against "armed bureaucrats" without becoming "armed bureaucrats"?
Why does "armed" mean "bureaucrat"? Of course free men are armed! Self-defense is moral. The bureaucrats' aggression is not, but defense against them is.
Quote
Quote
Quote
The parasytes always need a host. If the host allows the parasytes to remain, whose fault is that?
Whoops--you've just skipped a groove and decided you're an anarchist after all! Right. Everyone who does not like lice must be an anarchist. <roll eyes>
You're missing the power and elegance of my reply. Your statement is the definition of anarcho-capitalism. If you really believe it, you have no choice but to be one. If you secretly believe that some lice are necessary, and some blood is a fair price to pay, then you are a host who allows the parasites to remain, just as you said above. Your own statement is the best definition of anarcho-capitalism that I've ever seen.
--Len.
Post by: CAnnoneer on October 04, 2007, 03:03:53 PM
Quote
The predator class (what you call "bureaucrats") did manage to hoodwink the others and take over.
And therein lies the impetus behind the libertarian 'philosophy'. They grieve only that they are not the predators. If only that bothersome government, the one that protects the weak, the old, the infirm, were out of the way, the world would be theirs for the taking.
Libertarianism is, at its root, about predation. Nothing more.
I think there is far more to it, but agree that a subsection of self-proclaimed libertarians are ultimately malcontents looking for ways to prey on others without interference. A related problem is the deep infiltration of libertarian circles by anarchists and provocateurs of different flavors.
Post by: Len Budney on October 04, 2007, 03:10:10 PM
Anarchy doesn't imply the absence of authority. An anarcho-capitalist society would positively bristle with authority structures.
What exactly does anarchy ("no authority") mean then?
Now we're getting somewhere! This is super-important stuff. Anarchy doesn't mean "no authority." It means "no ruler." BIG difference.
Quote
And what are these "power structures" other than rival organizations that will vie for power at the expense of everybody else?
Do you have a job? Your employer has authority. It's limited: he can't kill you, rape you, tax you or tase you. But he can make rules for his property, and he can fire you. The company is an authority structure that exists quite happily in an anarcho-capitalist society. Churches, families, fraternal orders, and organizations of every description and stripe are perfectly legitimate. None of them can enforce their will arbitrarily, but they can defend themselves and their property. In particular, they can evict, refuse to associate and shun. And if you attack their persons or property, they can use lethal force in self-defense.
A man might live a very regimented life under anarcho-capitalism: he obeys his priest, on pain of excommunication; and he obeys his employer, on pain of dismissal. He obeys his father, if he lives at home. He probably continues to obey his father after moving out, because he doesn't want the family to shun him. He obeys his superiors at the moose lodge, because he doesn't want to be stripped of his antlers. And he obeys the rules of the road, as set by the road's owner, of the shopping mall, as set by the mall's owner, and so on. An anarcho-capitalist society is bristling with authority because property owners have the power to evict, and all property is private.
Quote
You want to destroy the central government and create a bunch of minigovs that will be just as dangerous...
You're saying that your neighbor is as dangerous as the BATFE, because he can kick you off his land?
Quote
I am not going to play semantics games. Gov means who is in charge.
Then I'm the government of my property, and my boss is the government of the office. Fine, if you want to misuse language like that, but you're setting yourself up for confusion.
Quote
Quote
Such wasn't even possible until sometime in the last few thousand years, when man had both sufficient intelligence and sufficient technology to begin exploiting the division of labor.
Exploiting the division of labor. Hmmm. How do you propose you do that without a gov to enforce contracts and take care of criminals?
You're saying I can't hire you to fix my car without police backing me up? That's silly! I propose to do it by striking a contract with you. If you violate the contract in a way that violates my person or property, I will exercise lethal force against you. If you violate the contract without violating my person or property, then I'll tell everyone in town that you're a welsher, and you'll never find work again. Meanwhile, I'll hire someone more reliable.
--Len.
Post by: Len Budney on October 04, 2007, 03:11:17 PM
Quote
The predator class (what you call "bureaucrats") did manage to hoodwink the others and take over.
And therein lies the impetus behind the libertarian 'philosophy'. They grieve only that they are not the predators.
That's ridiculous, not to mention Orwellian. Explain exactly how respecting your person and property rights absolutely makes me a "predator."
--Len.
Post by: CAnnoneer on October 04, 2007, 03:14:55 PM
Really, no. The Holocaust and the deaths of the Great Leap Forward certainly were not "rival organizations" vying for power. They are instances of those in power abusing those under them - whether out of paranoia (the GLF) or megalomania (the Holocaust).
Actually, I believe the examples fit my framework perfectly.
The Nazis (an organization) believed that a rival organization (the "international bolshevik jewry") was undermining their country, culture, economy, and heredity. So, one organization violently dealt with another. You may disagree that the jews were an "organization", but that does not change the Nazi perception and the resulting actions taken. The communist party was certainly an organization and so was the gov of the USSR (which the Nazis believed was dominated by "bolshevik commissar jews", i.e. a subsection of their rival organization).
The leninists and stalinists wiping out the kulaks is another example of one organization perceiving another as the enemy and dealing with it violently. Lenin himself said that peasants were inherently counter-revolutionary, backward force, because they believe in private property. Also, taking into account the kulaks had the land, there was also a strong political and economic conflict to resolve. That the kulaks did not strongly organize before the stalinists swooped on them does not change the nature of the conflict. In fact I did say that better organized organizations would generally win. No surprise.
The situation was similar in these terms with the Red Khmer wiping out potential political rivals and Chinese commies swooping on perceived opponents during the cultural revolution.
Post by: Paddy on October 04, 2007, 03:16:44 PM
Quote
If you violate the contract in a way that violates my person or property, I will exercise lethal force against you.
If you think 'violation', or theft of property justifies your use of lethal force, you sir, need to be disarmed and restrained.
Quote
If you violate the contract without violating my person or property, then I'll tell everyone in town that you're a welsher, and you'll never find work again.
Unless of course 'everyone in town' already knows that you are deceptive in your business practices. Then none of them will do business with you again.
Post by: Gewehr98 on October 04, 2007, 03:26:06 PM
Let's play nice in here, ok?
Post by: Len Budney on October 04, 2007, 03:30:42 PM
Quote
If you violate the contract in a way that violates my person or property, I will exercise lethal force against you.
If you think 'violation', or theft of property justifies your use of lethal force, you sir, need to be disarmed and restrained.
I think it's clear what I'm saying. If your contract violation endangers my life, I'll defend my life. If it endangers my property, I'll defend my property; if in the course of defending my property you place me in fear of death or grave bodily harm, etc., etc...
Quote
Quote
If you violate the contract without violating my person or property, then I'll tell everyone in town that you're a welsher, and you'll never find work again.
Unless of course 'everyone in town' already knows that you are deceptive in your business practices. Then none of them will do business with you again.
That's right. It cuts both ways.
--Len.
Post by: CAnnoneer on October 04, 2007, 03:31:35 PM
You are attempting to construct a framework within which it is justified to forcibly take another's property (what we call "stealing"), to force others to act according to our will (what we call "slavery"), and to imprison (i.e., "kidnap") or execute (i.e., "murder") anyone who refuses. Of course you've been taught all your life that that's the way it is--just as English people are taught all their lives that aristocrats are their superiors, or gorillas believe without question that the alpha male can take your women if he wants her.
Taxes are part of the social contract. Gov inevitably has expenses. You get representation in exchange for the taxation. If you do not want to be taxed, pay your taxes and push for a law that will make a deal for you - you can refuse to pay taxes in exchange for your right of representation. But then, you have no say in what the gov does. How does that sound?
Also, please go ahead and patronize us when you actually propose something workable. Up to now, all you have done is 90% whining plus 10% stuff that was quickly shot down as impractical.
Quote
NO. The laws against rape, murder or theft are binding whether or not I agree. Double-check, and you'll find that in every case I cited laws that punish me for harming nobody.
If you do not pay taxes, but enjoy rights, services, and privileges, you steal from those that provide you with those by paying their taxes. That is theft.
Quote
Why does "armed" mean "bureaucrat"? Of course free men are armed! Self-defense is moral. The bureaucrats' aggression is not, but defense against them is.
So, your army of a few disorganized, self-willed, free-men anarchists is going to meet the organized, well-equipped, synchronized army of the state... Read up on Machno in Russia. He got thrashed so badly it is embarrassing.
Quote
Quote
The parasytes always need a host. If the host allows the parasytes to remain, whose fault is that?
Your statement is the definition of anarcho-capitalism. If you really believe it, you have no choice but to be one. If you secretly believe that some lice are necessary, and some blood is a fair price to pay, then you are a host who allows the parasites to remain, just as you said above. Your own statement is the best definition of anarcho-capitalism that I've ever seen.There is parasytism and there is price of doing business. A parasyte gives nothing back to the host. A symbiote gives something back. We all get something from the gov, even if we do not wish to admit it. Therefore gov per se is not a parasyte, even if individual representatives of gov can be. So the relationship is symbiotic, not parasytic. We can argue as to how much is reasonable. We can and should identify the parasytes and take then out. However, killing the whole symbiotic system because of a few parasytes is counterproductive.
Post by: Len Budney on October 04, 2007, 03:38:36 PM
You are attempting to construct a framework within which it is justified to forcibly take another's property (what we call "stealing"), to force others to act according to our will (what we call "slavery"), and to imprison (i.e., "kidnap") or execute (i.e., "murder") anyone who refuses. Of course you've been taught all your life that that's the way it is--just as English people are taught all their lives that aristocrats are their superiors, or gorillas believe without question that the alpha male can take your women if he wants her.
Taxes are part of the social contract.
Exactly: that's the framework you adopt to justify theft, slavery, kidnapping and murder. I have lots of affection for Locke, but his "social contract" idea was all wet. A contract is a voluntary agreement entered purposefully. A "social" contract is the opposite of a contract: I don't sign it; yet it's enforced upon me. Your "social contract" is a fiction. I challenge you to prove its existence without resorting to (1) naked circular reasoning (It just is! It is!), or (2) might makes right (OK, try and break the law, and give my regards to your new husband).
Quote
Gov inevitably has expenses. You get representation in exchange for the taxation.
I don't want this "representation" you speak of, so I choose not to purchase any. Thanks all the same; try the guy next door. What? Watch where you're pointing that thing!
Quote
Quote
NO. The laws against rape, murder or theft are binding whether or not I agree. Double-check, and you'll find that in every case I cited laws that punish me for harming nobody.
If you do not pay taxes, but enjoy rights, services, and privileges, you steal from those that provide you with those by paying their taxes. That is theft.
Standard protection racket stuff. Yawn.
Quote
Quote
Quote
The parasytes always need a host. If the host allows the parasytes to remain, whose fault is that?
Your statement is the definition of anarcho-capitalism. If you really believe it, you have no choice but to be one. If you secretly believe that some lice are necessary, and some blood is a fair price to pay, then you are a host who allows the parasites to remain, just as you said above. Your own statement is the best definition of anarcho-capitalism that I've ever seen.There is parasytism and there is price of doing business. A parasyte gives nothing back to the host. A symbiote gives something back.
And eh, what I give you is eh, protection, you know? It would be a shame if anything tragic were to happen to you... like waking up with a horse's head in your bed, or in a cage with your new husband, you know? That would make me very sad...
--Len.
Post by: CAnnoneer on October 04, 2007, 03:52:07 PM
Now we're getting somewhere! This is super-important stuff. Anarchy doesn't mean "no authority." It means "no ruler." BIG difference.
Instead of saying what it is not, tell us what it is.
Quote
Churches, families, fraternal orders, and organizations of every description and stripe are perfectly legitimate. None of them can enforce their will arbitrarily, but they can defend themselves and their property. In particular, they can evict, refuse to associate and shun. And if you attack their persons or property, they can use lethal force in self-defense.
So, in your society an order of nuns will be placed in the same tank with a violent gang of reprobates armed to the teeth, and they will 'work things out' by balance of force? This is a perfect example why it does not work. The stronger organization will prey upon the weaker ones. The nuns will end up beaten, raped, tortured, robbed, and killed.
Quote
A man might live a very regimented life under anarcho-capitalism: he obeys his priest, on pain of excommunication; and he obeys his employer, on pain of dismissal. He obeys his father, if he lives at home. He probably continues to obey his father after moving out, because he doesn't want the family to shun him. He obeys his superiors at the moose lodge, because he doesn't want to be stripped of his antlers. And he obeys the rules of the road, as set by the road's owner, of the shopping mall, as set by the mall's owner, and so on. An anarcho-capitalist society is bristling with authority because property owners have the power to evict, and all property is private.
I hear a lot of "obey". What happened to the "free-men"? You want to replace one presumed tyrant with a thousand small ones.
Also, you still do not explain how this society is stable against takeover by a few violent, determined, shrewd well-armed criminals, human nature being what it is. Such guys would not give a crap about any of your distributed power structures, because they will establish their own. They will kill everybody who resists, and make an example of their families and friends. Human nature being as is, most will shut up and toil under the new administration. You are back to square one.
Quote
Then I'm the government of my property, and my boss is the government of the office. Fine, if you want to misuse language like that, but you're setting yourself up for confusion.
You are facetizing. Gov is who is in charge in society, not your office or closet. In fact, a more repressive autocratic gov would say that you make use of your closet, or in fact still live, only because they let you.
Quote
You're saying I can't hire you to fix my car without police backing me up? That's silly! I propose to do it by striking a contract with you. If you violate the contract in a way that violates my person or property, I will exercise lethal force against you. If you violate the contract without violating my person or property, then I'll tell everyone in town that you're a welsher, and you'll never find work again. Meanwhile, I'll hire someone more reliable.
Right. So you think you can become the gov yourself and enforce the contract with Ringo. Ringo says "ok", then come back with a few amigos the next day and kills you dead. Then he takes your stuff, hires a few more do-no-goods, they move to your neighbor, do the same to him. Etc. Soon, Ringo has a huge force of marauders that plunders the countryside, while the "good anarchists" get killed off one by one. It has happened before.
Post by: CAnnoneer on October 04, 2007, 04:06:49 PM
Exactly: that's the framework you adopt to justify theft, slavery, kidnapping and murder. I have lots of affection for Locke, but his "social contract" idea was all wet. A contract is a voluntary agreement entered purposefully. A "social" contract is the opposite of a contract: I don't sign it; yet it's enforced upon me. Your "social contract" is a fiction. I challenge you to prove its existence without resorting to (1) naked circular reasoning (It just is! It is!), or (2) might makes right (OK, try and break the law, and give my regards to your new husband).
There is no circular reasoning. You sign the social contract by choosing to continue to live in this country. You do not like the laws and are too lazy to try to change them by the established process. Fine. Nobody stops you from moving out. Go live on a desert island by yourself. You can draft your own constitution and read it to the monkeys and parrots in the jungle. Just don't bring anybody with you, because you will immediately be subject to another social contract.
Quote
I don't want this "representation" you speak of, so I choose not to purchase any. Thanks all the same; try the guy next door. What? Watch where you're pointing that thing!
If you do not want to be represented, then the gov moves on without you. They decide that everyone in the country must pay taxes. Including you. You don't like it? Too bad. You got no representation. Now you got only taxation.
Quote
Standard protection racket stuff. YawnAnd eh, what I give you is eh, protection, you know? It would be a shame if anything tragic were to happen to you... like waking up with a horse's head in your bed, or in a cage with your new husband, you know? That would make me very sad...
Whether you admit it or not, you use a lot of gov services. You just do not want to pay for them. If you do not need them, why not move to broken countries without gov to extort you. You are a tough guy, aren't you? What are 20-30 guerrillas with AK-47s and matchettes? You will certainly prevail.
Post by: Len Budney on October 05, 2007, 02:54:12 AM
Exactly: that's the framework you adopt to justify theft, slavery, kidnapping and murder. I have lots of affection for Locke, but his "social contract" idea was all wet. A contract is a voluntary agreement entered purposefully. A "social" contract is the opposite of a contract: I don't sign it; yet it's enforced upon me. Your "social contract" is a fiction. I challenge you to prove its existence without resorting to (1) naked circular reasoning (It just is! It is!), or (2) might makes right (OK, try and break the law, and give my regards to your new husband).
There is no circular reasoning. You sign the social contract by choosing to continue to live in this country.
That is circular: you haven't proven yet that it exists and is binding. I can as easily say that by continuing to breathe, you're agreeing to give me your firstborn.
Quote
Quote
I don't want this "representation" you speak of, so I choose not to purchase any. Thanks all the same; try the guy next door. What? Watch where you're pointing that thing!
If you do not want to be represented, then the gov moves on without you.
And still sticks me with the bill.
Quote
They decide that everyone in the country must pay taxes. Including you.
Circular again. They get that right where? From this "contract" of yours that I never agreed to. I think I'll name your firstborn "Hoss." Unless it's a boy.
Quote
Quote
Standard protection racket stuff. Yawn... And eh, what I give you is eh, protection, you know? It would be a shame if anything tragic were to happen to you... like waking up with a horse's head in your bed, or in a cage with your new husband, you know? That would make me very sad...
Whether you admit it or not, you use a lot of gov services.
Notably, roads. But you can't blame that on me: they stole the roads, leaving nobody any choice but to traverse their stolen property, and then claimed that our passage constitutes consent. That is a classic Mafia tactic, you know. When I call it a "protection racket," I mean that quite literally. But those "services" that I'm "forced" to use don't imply consent, or justify anything.
--Len.
Post by: CAnnoneer on October 05, 2007, 11:54:39 AM
That is circular: you haven't proven yet that it exists and is binding. I can as easily say that by continuing to breathe, you're agreeing to give me your firstborn.
Rules exist as laws. You choose to obey them or to break them. If you obey them, in exchange you avoid punishment and receive certain services. If you choose to break them, you are punished in various ways. That is the practical definition of social contract - the membership rights and responsibilities in a human social group.
You can certainly choose to cancel your membership, in which case the club will cancel your rights and privileges and throw you out.
You can also choose to work within the club as a member, convincing other members in supporting your cause and changing the club rules.
This is the framework of the argument. It remains for you to determine how you fit in.
Quote
And still sticks me with the bill.
Membership fee. See above options.
Quote
Circular again. They get that right where? From this "contract" of yours that I never agreed to. I think I'll name your firstborn "Hoss." Unless it's a boy.
Through a bad practice in current club rules, kids of members automatically become members. I consider this very stupid. Citizenship should be earned, not drawn out of a hat. But, back to your situation, you are free to leave the club and cancel your membership. Why don't you do it? Nobody is stopping you. You can go out there and establish your own club.
Quote
Notably, roads.
You are using far more than roads. You can drink the water and breathe the air without getting diseases or dying prematurely because of gov ecological regulations. You eat food without getting sick because of safety standards. You and your family are not (generally) assaulted, robbed, ripped off, or killed on the street, because 3 million murderers, rapists, crooks, gangbangers, etc. are kept under lock and key, day and night. You are not enslaved by foreign dictatorships because of the national military. You enjoy enforcement of contracts and the multitude of economic, social, and technological boons that come out of it, because of gov enforcement of the rules.
The only way you can live free of any gov is to pick up the lifestyle of Robinson Crusoe, and even then, you'd better make damn certain nobody ever finds your island. So long as you want to live in a society, you will be subject to its government. If you believe a functioning cooperative human society is possible without any government, please provide us with its blueprints and be ready to answer the counter-arguments.
Quote
But you can't blame that on me: they stole the roads, leaving nobody any choice but to traverse their stolen property, and then claimed that our passage constitutes consent. That is a classic Mafia tactic, you know. When I call it a "protection racket," I mean that quite literally. But those "services" that I'm "forced" to use don't imply consent, or justify anything.
So, you use gov services because you are forced? You are not - see above. Robinson Crusoe pays no racket money to anybody. You have the choice of taking up his lifestyle. There are hundreds of islands out there, devoid of human population.
Post by: Len Budney on October 05, 2007, 12:02:25 PM
That is circular: you haven't proven yet that it exists and is binding. I can as easily say that by continuing to breathe, you're agreeing to give me your firstborn.
Rules exist as laws. You choose to obey them or to break them.
Circular: you keep claiming without proof that I'm bound by them.
Quote
If you obey them, in exchange you avoid punishment...
Might makes right.
Quote
If you choose to break them, you are punished in various ways. That is the practical definition of social contract...
So you're saying that in prison you are part of a social contract to be sodomized? After all, in exchange you avoid savage beatings; if you choose to resist, you are punished in various ways. Indeed, your description aptly describes how the Mafia works as well.
Quote
This is the framework of the argument. It remains for you to determine how you fit in.
Might makes right, again.
Quote
Quote
Circular again. They get that right where? From this "contract" of yours that I never agreed to. I think I'll name your firstborn "Hoss." Unless it's a boy.
Through a bad practice in current club rules, kids of members automatically become members.
Says who? Oh, right: says the club's management. Whose authority to make such proclamations is in dispute. Once again: circular.
Quote
Quote
Notably, roads.
You are using far more than roads. You can drink the water and breathe the air...
Finally a break from circularity and might makes right: now government is God, and gives us air to breathe, warm summers and fruitful harvests. I can hear the music now.
Quote
So, you use gov services because you are forced?
Yes. They're here uninvited, and then claim credit for the air I breathe, the warm summers and fruitful harvests I enjoy, and a great deal more besides. They try to misrepresent their coercion as my consent. Fortunately, I'm not that easily fooled.
--Len.
Post by: CAnnoneer on October 05, 2007, 12:10:22 PM
Post by: Len Budney on October 05, 2007, 12:13:50 PM
Sorry, Len, at this point you have abandoned rationality and are just ranting/emoting. You can go ahead by yourself.
I'm happy to stop, since we're getting nowhere, but I have neither ranted nor emoted. You assert that certain people have the moral right to expropriate my property and, if I refuse, either to kidnap or kill me. I deny it. You have offered no proof except the repeated assertion that "there are laws," or "there's a social contract," etc., which are the circular arguments I predicted. You also pointed out that if I do resist, they will take my property by force and/or kidnap and/or kill me, which is the "might makes right" argument that I also predicted.
There's nothing irrational about pointing out the flaws in your argument. I even tried to save you time by pointing them out beforehand.
If you're bored, by the way, you might want to meditate on this. Truth said in jest.
--Len.
Post by: CAnnoneer on October 05, 2007, 12:33:49 PM
You assert that certain people have the moral right to expropriate my property and, if I refuse, either to kidnap or kill me. I deny it.
I have never said anything about moral rights of expropriation or murder. Gov is a convenience, an optimal solution to a set of social and biological problems. There is nothing circular about telling you to change the rules of the club or quit the club. You also keep ignoring the simple solution: Leave the club. Instead you protest that the club security is going to manhandle you because you refuse to leave AND refuse to pay the membership fee.
Quote
There's nothing irrational about pointing out the flaws in your argument. I even tried to save you time by pointing them out beforehand.
It is irrational to keep repeating that you have accepted no contract while you are abiding by the same contract every second of your existence. It is also irrational to say that all gov in existence are just different in the archon's tunic color, when what you have said would have got you hanged, drawn, and quartered in old England and tortured and shot under stalinism. There is nothing rational about your haphazard assault on the status quo when you are providing NO WORKABLE ALTERNATIVES.
Post by: Len Budney on October 05, 2007, 12:36:55 PM
You assert that certain people have the moral right to expropriate my property and, if I refuse, either to kidnap or kill me. I deny it.
I have never said anything about moral rights of expropriation or murder. Gov is a convenience...
Curious: you're admitting it's immoral, then? In that case, why would you even undertake to "justify" it?
Quote
There is nothing circular about telling you to change the rules of the club or quit the club.
Yes, there is: I deny ever having joined it, and you keep inviting me to quit! It doesn't get more circular than that.
--Len.
Post by: CAnnoneer on October 05, 2007, 12:49:16 PM
Curious: you're admitting it's immoral, then? In that case, why would you even undertake to "justify" it?
I do not need to justify it on a moral basis to admit its usefulness on a biological basis. Nature does not care about morality or my justification of it. It works the other way around - biological imperatives is mostly what motivates the software people call "morality". The reason is purely Darwinian - a social organization that does not maximize biological success by its adopted software is pushed aside by one that does.
Quote
Yes, there is: I deny ever having joined it, and you keep inviting me to quit! It doesn't get more circular than that.
If you never joined it consciously, you are either a foreign national or got the citizenship by birth. If you are a foreigner then you got no basis to complain about having to live by this nation's laws so long as you are here. If you are a citizen, then that case was already covered above. In any case, it is silly to facetize about how you "joined" - the point is you are a member now, but can quit. Again, nothing circular.
Post by: Len Budney on October 05, 2007, 12:56:27 PM
Curious: you're admitting it's immoral, then? In that case, why would you even undertake to "justify" it?
I do not need to justify it on a moral basis to admit its usefulness on a biological basis.
Was it unclear that the entire discussion was about a moral justification? I'll point out that it isn't very useful to its victims. You apparently believe that it's beneficial to you, and you cordially invite anyone who disagrees to suck it. That's the "might makes right" argument I pointed out earlier.
Quote
...it is silly to facetize about how you "joined" - the point is you are a member now, but can quit. Again, nothing circular.
I deny being a member now. You once again affirm that I am one by inviting me to quit. That's not only circular, but it's a spectacularly boring version of the circular argument. Merle Haggard makes good music but lousy logic.
--Len.
Post by: CAnnoneer on October 05, 2007, 01:09:06 PM
Was it unclear that the entire discussion was about a moral justification? I'll point out that it isn't very useful to its victims. You apparently believe that it's beneficial to you, and you cordially invite anyone who disagrees to suck it. That's the "might makes right" argument I pointed out earlier.
If the status quo were beneficial just to me and nobody else, I'd be dead in a second. The reality is the status quo remains because it is beneficial to most people. It is even beneficial to you, although you choose not to admit it.
Quote
I deny being a member now. You once again affirm that I am one by inviting me to quit. That's not only circular, but it's a spectacularly boring version of the circular argument.
Are you a US citizen?
Post by: Len Budney on October 05, 2007, 01:19:00 PM
The reality is the status quo remains because it is beneficial to most people.
I find that statement interesting. It hints at another circular argument, because if I ask how you know it's "beneficial to most people," you'll say, "because it remains." But the statement is clearly false, unless you suggest that the Soviet government was "beneficial to most people," or that the Third Reich was, or Mao's government, etc.
It's a truism that the government would promptly fall if enough people wanted it gone badly enough. But that's a far cry from saying that not overthrowing the government is proof that most people want it. That's the fallacy of affirming the consequent.
--Len.
Post by: CAnnoneer on October 05, 2007, 01:59:59 PM
The reality is the status quo remains because it is beneficial to most people.
I find that statement interesting. It hints at another circular argument, because if I ask how you know it's "beneficial to most people," you'll say, "because it remains." But the statement is clearly false, unless you suggest that the Soviet government was "beneficial to most people," or that the Third Reich was, or Mao's government, etc.Actually, all examples you have given are ones in which the respective governments were supported by a large portion of the population and tolerated by most of the population. There are people that present such dictatorships as hugely unpopular, but the reality is quite different and less convenient. Most members benefited from the club from the viewpoint of what they got w.r.t. what they had before that. And so long as they benefited, they offered support. When they felt they did not keep benefiting, the support was withdrawn. If anything, these examples prove my point.
People are far more calculating than you give them credit.
Post by: Len Budney on October 05, 2007, 02:16:14 PM
Actually, all examples you have given are ones in which the respective governments were supported by a large portion of the population and tolerated by most of the population. There are people that present such dictatorships as hugely unpopular, but the reality is quite different and less convenient...
If so, then that takes care of the last of your argument. I have no interest whatsoever in a majority-supported immoral regime such as the ones I've mentioned (and plenty of others besides). If your overall assessment is correct, then you merely prove my point: humans have not yet evolved beyond the stage of immoral beasts. If so, I pity my species.
--Len.
Post by: CAnnoneer on October 05, 2007, 02:23:38 PM
If your overall assessment is correct, then you merely prove my point: humans have not yet evolved beyond the stage of immoral beasts. If so, I pity my species.
Welcome to Planet Earth, home of Homo Sapiens, a species terrible and magnificent.
But, you are suggesting that there are viable alternatives offered by evolution. Please propose a species modus operandi (a.k.a. morality), which is ecologically stable.
Post by: Gewehr98 on October 05, 2007, 03:27:44 PM
Quote
I deny being a member now.
Nothing wrong with renouncing one's citizenship. It wouldn't be the first time that's happened in these United States.
http://www.straightdope.com/classics/a4_229.html
In the meantime, I'm starting to believe that Mercedesrules has a twin brother.
Post by: Len Budney on October 05, 2007, 03:40:24 PM
This is funny, it's so sad.
Nothing funny about it: someone claims he has the power to take my property, and if he wishes to violate my person or even kill me. I deny it. Cannoneer can't come up with a moral justification for anyone having such a power, and finally he declared that no moral justification whatsoever is necessary--i.e., he has either renounced morality entirely, or defined "right" to be synonymous with "might." I'd be surprised if even many statists accept that; most that I've met do believe that morality is on their side, and they care that it should be so. On that note, see here.
Quote
Nothing wrong with renouncing one's citizenship.
I have not renounced my citizenship. On the contrary, I consider "citizenship" to be entirely irrelevant to the discussion. Cannoneer tried to use "citizen" as a synonym for "signatory to the 'social contract'," but he was begging the question: he never proved the existence of this "contract" in the first place. He just keeps reaffirming it in various words, and insisting that I'm obligated to "leave" or "quit" or "renounce" to escape this "contract" whose existence he has not yet proven. That's what we call "circular reasoning."
The reason he's having trouble is that the "contract" doesn't exist. If you claim I contracted to paint your house, and I deny it, you can prove the existence of the contract by showing your copy, for example. The same cannot be said of the "social contract." Instead people attempt to structure it as a "shrink-wrap license," claiming that one demonstrates one's acceptance of the agreement by breathing, or not moving to Belgium.
--Len.
Post by: Paddy on October 05, 2007, 04:19:47 PM
Quote
I deny being a member now.
Yet you exercise the privileges of membership, including use of the currency and highways, both government property. Your argument is inconsistent.
Post by: CAnnoneer on October 05, 2007, 05:21:12 PM
This is funny, it's so sad.
I agree. Hundreds of millions out there dream about becoming Americans. 2 million people risk dying to sneak in illegally every year. Yet, we somehow home-grow a crop of malcontent youths that take all privileges (granted to them at birth) as "background" and think the membership is oppressive due to the few associated liabilities.
Post by: CAnnoneer on October 05, 2007, 05:35:36 PM
Nothing funny about it: someone claims he has the power to take my property, and if he wishes to violate my person or even kill me. I deny it. Cannoneer can't come up with a moral justification for anyone having such a power, and finally he declared that no moral justification whatsoever is necessary
Sorry but you cannot claim any moral highground. You enjoy a series of privileges "by default", through "the enormous personal feat" of getting born in America, privileges for which you pay very little to nothing, privileges which others have fought off and fight off a horde of aholes to establish and preserve, but privileges which you either despise or refuse to recognize. On top of that you playing semantics games here about how you have not signed any contract, while you obey it and exploit it every day, whether you wish to admit it or not. That's like living in your parents' house on their dime, but complaining that you have to do a chore once in a while because you have not signed any contract that says you must.
Quote
--i.e., he has either renounced morality entirely, or defined "right" to be synonymous with "might." I'd be surprised if even many statists accept that; most that I've met do believe that morality is on their side, and they care that it should be so. On that note, see here.
Anyone can blabber about what is morally right till the sun grows cold. The reality is that without might to protect the right, you get neither.
Quote
I have not renounced my citizenship. On the contrary, I consider "citizenship" to be entirely irrelevant to the discussion.
Of course you consider it "irrelevant". Something given has no value. Heinlein is smurking in his grave.
Post by: Len Budney on October 05, 2007, 06:17:47 PM
Sorry but you cannot claim any moral highground. You enjoy a series of privileges "by default", through "the enormous personal feat" of getting born in America...
I don't know what you're talking about. Are you claiming that if I were born in Somalia, something about what I said above would be different?
But even that's beside the point: to claim that our prosperity is due to the US government is nuts. Our prosperity is in spite of the US government. What prosperity we have was created by free enterprise. The only fortunate thing about our government is that in times past we had less of it: thanks to the "less of it," the market was able to function. Whenever government rose in the US, the market, and prosperity with it, declined. And vice versa. The genius of the founders was in limiting government. They didn't limit it enough, and it has since metastasized, but their pruning it back in the 18th century was a benefit for which I am grateful.
It's a modern aberration that people who claim to be Jefferson's intellectual heirs get Jefferson exactly backwards, and now see the government as the fount of our blessings rather than "a dangerous servant and a terrifying master."
Quote
Anyone can blabber about what is morally right till the sun grows cold. The reality is that without might to protect the right, you get neither.
Sure. And people get killed, women raped, Jews gassed, Batutsis slashed to death, etc., etc.. So what's your point?
Quote
Quote
I have not renounced my citizenship. On the contrary, I consider "citizenship" to be entirely irrelevant to the discussion.
Of course you consider it "irrelevant". Something given has no value. Heinlein is smurking in his grave.
Um, reread The Moon is a Harsh Mistress. Heinlein was on my side.
--Len.
Post by: CAnnoneer on October 05, 2007, 06:44:55 PM
I don't know what you're talking about. Are you claiming that if I were born in Somalia, something about what I said above would be different?
You need to spend some time living in failed societies. That's the only way for you to really get it.
Quote
But even that's beside the point: to claim that our prosperity is due to the US government is nuts. Our prosperity is in spite of the US government.
Certain policies and laws pose a predicament but the overall social structure and system of laws is what enables the entrepreneurial spirit to materialize success. There are smart, determined people in other countries as well. A major reason why those countries are not nearly as successful is the inadequate system of laws and/or lack of sufficient enforcement.
Quote
What prosperity we have was created by free enterprise.
Free enterprise cannot exist in a vacuum, without a stable system of government to enforce laws and contracts. Think about it long enough, you will convince yourself in that truism.
Quote
Sure. And people get killed, women raped, Jews gassed, Batutsis slashed to death, etc., etc.. So what's your point?
My point is your stance is naive and inconsistent when you criticize the application of might, when the enforcement of the rules of any morality is dependent upon it.
Quote
Um, reread The Moon is a Harsh Mistress. Heinlein was on my side.
I have. I was referring to Starship Troopers. As far as the Moon goes, do you seriously contend that Free Luna was pure libertarian? If anything, Prof de la Paz is exactly the kind of tricky undemocratic manipulator that libertarians deplore. If anything, Free Luna is a nice demonstration why pure libertarianism does not work, cannot be established, and cannot be maintained even if established by non-libertarian methods.
Post by: Iapetus on October 06, 2007, 02:39:44 AM
just as English people are taught all their lives that aristocrats are their superiors,
Sorry to interrupt such such a fascinating discussion, but if that is true generally, then my education has been severely lacking.
Post by: Len Budney on October 06, 2007, 05:33:19 AM
Free enterprise cannot exist in a vacuum...
True.
Quote
without a stable system of government...
False.
Quote
My point is your stance is naive and inconsistent when you criticize the application of might, when the enforcement of the rules of any morality is dependent upon it.
No: you are conflating defensive force, which is every creature's birthright, and "might" in general, which is not.
Quote
...do you seriously contend that Free Luna was pure libertarian?...
Never said it was. But the book articulates perfectly the anarchist case. Just a few quotes follow.
--Len.
"But I will accept any rules that you feel necessary to your freedom. I am free, no matter what rules surround me. If I find them tolerable, I tolerate them; if I find them to obnoxious, I break them. I am free because I know that I alone am morally responsible for everything I do." p63
"First, what is it you want us to pay taxes for? Tell me what I get and perhaps I'll buy it." p184
"There is no worse tyranny than to force a man to pay for what he does not want merely because you think it would be good for him." p230
"You have put your finger on the dilemma of all government and the reason I am an anarchist. The power to tax, once conceded, has no limits; it contains until it destroys." p231
"Seems to be a deep instinct in human beings for making everything compulsory that is forbidden." p287
"At one time kings were anointed by Deity, so the problem was to see to it that Deity chose the right candidate. In this age the myth is 'the will of the people' ... but the problem changes only superficially."
"I listened to some sessions, then cornered Prof and asked what in Bog's name he was up to? 'Thought you didn't want any government. Have you heard those nuts since you turned them loose?'... But Prof didn't get excited; he went on smiling. 'Manuel, do you really think that mob of retarded children can pass any laws?'"
Post by: CAnnoneer on October 06, 2007, 07:02:17 AM
Let's just see what crimes your band of anarchists/libertarians committed: Multiple counts of
1) murder
2) conspiracy to commit murder
3) conspiracy to commit rape
3) theft
4) conspiracy to commit theft
5) electoral fraud
6) financial fraud
7) obstruction of justice, falsifying evidence
And this is just the list off the top of my head. Unless under your anarchist system you condone such behavior, you will have an impossible time establishing and maintaining the Free Luna system.
Finally, the Prof is an anarchist only in his own words. In his deeds, he was the de-facto dictator of Free Luna, or at least the senior tetrarch. That's one of the biggest indications to the reader that Heinlein was poking fun at the world and had no illusions about a society structured like that. Also observe that at the end of the book, Mike goes silent and Free Luna moves towards the traditional gov institutions of earthworm style, albeit as an independent state. So, the Prof did not build an anarchist or libertarian society to last; he just fomented and directed a revolution to win independence. And that is Heinlein's final lesson.
Post by: Len Budney on October 06, 2007, 07:33:19 AM
Len, you are taking Heinlein too literally.
Um, we're not discussing the Bible here. I cite the bits I do not because they're holy writ, but because they're correct.
--Len.
Post by: CAnnoneer on October 06, 2007, 07:36:04 AM
Quote
without a stable system of government...
False.Please give an example of a working laissez-faire system in the absence of a stable system of gov, which was not ultimately displaced by a society that enjoyed both. You must internalize the truism that long-term successful business and society require a gov enforcing contracts at the very least. If there is no gov, businesses and individuals will take matters into their own hands, resulting in bloody feuds and far more violence, while in the long run the businesses suffer.
Quote
No: you are conflating defensive force, which is every creature's birthright, and "might" in general, which is not.
They are different applications of might. You might thing they are different ethically, but they are not different physically. There is no functional difference between "offensive" and "defensive" might, other than "who started it". Once it starts, violence is violence.
In any case, the ethical difference is irrelevant, because there are no guarantees that your opponents would share your views of right and wrong (incidentally, one of Prof's quotes is a direct indication of that). When they don't, your system collapses. Then conditional power devolves into coercive power (read J.K. Galbraith) and you slug it out. That is why even your society will ultimately be based on "might is functionally right".
Quote
"But I will accept any rules that you feel necessary to your freedom. I am free, no matter what rules surround me. If I find them tolerable, I tolerate them; if I find them to obnoxious, I break them. I am free because I know that I alone am morally responsible for everything I do." p63
So, anyone who thinks your existence is an encroachment to their freedom is justified in taking you out, all rules out the window.
Quote
"First, what is it you want us to pay taxes for? Tell me what I get and perhaps I'll buy it." p184
Spend some time living abroad. You will convince yourself what you buy in American taxes.
Quote
"There is no worse tyranny than to force a man to pay for what he does not want merely because you think it would be good for him." p230
Literally correct, but irrelevant to the discussion. You are not forced to pay taxes because you have the option of opting out at any time. It is your choice to remain a citizen, and you choose to remain because deep inside you know it is worth it to you to do so. The fact that you refuse to admit is one of the inconsistencies of your position.
Quote
"You have put your finger on the dilemma of all government and the reason I am an anarchist. The power to tax, once conceded, has no limits; it contains until it destroys." p231
Only if you allow it to expand. Tax cuts that are just a few years old are a counterexample.
Quote
"Seems to be a deep instinct in human beings for making everything compulsory that is forbidden." p287
I need the context because it makes no sense as is. Page does not help because I got a different edition.
Quote
"At one time kings were anointed by Deity, so the problem was to see to it that Deity chose the right candidate. In this age the myth is 'the will of the people' ... but the problem changes only superficially."
If anything, this is a strike against anarchy.
Quote
"I listened to some sessions, then cornered Prof and asked what in Bog's name he was up to? 'Thought you didn't want any government. Have you heard those nuts since you turned them loose?'... But Prof didn't get excited; he went on smiling. 'Manuel, do you really think that mob of retarded children can pass any laws?'"
So the public is a "mob of retarded children"? I guess they cannot be allowed free choice, but need an archon to make decisions for them. You are contradicting yourself.
Post by: Gewehr98 on October 06, 2007, 07:41:25 AM
Quote
Um, we're not discussing the Bible here. I cite the bits I do not because they're holy writ, but because they're correct.
Posted like a true power user of the former ARPANet, now known as the Internet. "They're correct" - Damn right! In your anarchy-shaded world, I'll bet they are.
Jeebus. There are a bazillion anarchist/libertarian/Ted Kaczynski forum sites out there, and we're graced with this stuff here on APS. Go figure.
Post by: Len Budney on October 06, 2007, 08:20:15 AM
So the public is a "mob of retarded children"? I guess they cannot be allowed free choice, but need an archon to make decisions for them. You are contradicting yourself.
To direct their own lives, they're perfectly capable. Elitists get ticked because people spend more time playing cards and drinking beer, and less time at the opera, than they'd like.
To direct other's lives, they're "retarded children." The elitists would force us to watch opera; others would force us to play cards and drink beer. Nobody is competent to rule others' lives.
--Len.
Post by: Len Budney on October 06, 2007, 08:24:11 AM
There are a bazillion anarchist/libertarian/Ted Kaczynski forum sites out there, and we're graced with this stuff here on APS. Go figure.
I don't think that's a very appropriate response for an armed polite society. I suggest that one may not rob, assault or kill me, and you compare me to Ted Kaczynski, the Unabomber? Would it then be appropriate, since you do advocate confiscation of my property by force, to make snide references to "storm troopers"? If so, I can probably come up with some sort of humorous pun linking a gewehr to a sturmgewehr to the sturmabteilung who carried them, or some such.
But I thought that sort of thing was contrary to forum rules.
It is interesting to note, however, that when you can't come up with a moral justification for forcible confiscation of others' property, you resort to such a vicious ad hominem as linking your disputant to Ted Kaczynski.
--Len.
Post by: CAnnoneer on October 06, 2007, 08:51:07 AM
To direct other's lives, they're "retarded children." The elitists would force us to watch opera; others would force us to play cards and drink beer. Nobody is competent to rule others' lives.
But that's the problem, isn't it? It does not matter if they are competent or not - they believe they are competent. Moreover, they would try to establish a gov as a means to resolve conflicts and a means of self-defense at the least. YOU have to MAKE them abandon the concept of gov, which approach in itself is contradictory to your stated views. So, to have a chance to accomplish and maintain what you want, you will have to undermine and negate your own principles.
Even if you somehow manage to solve the above problem (I think it is practically impossible), you are still stuck with a society where all conflicts are resolved at the muzzle of a gun. So, then, after a lot of violence, a subsection of the population will establish a gov to defend themselves or prey upon others, or both, and they will win over the disorganized anarchists in the long run. You are back to square one.
In any case, it seems like I keep repeating myself in different ways, while you keep jumping from subtopic to subtopic without addressing my practicality arguments. As I said before, <rolleyes>, you have to provide WORKABLE ALTERNATIVES to the status quo, to be taken seriously. Otherwise, you come across as just whining about what you see.
Post by: Len Budney on October 06, 2007, 10:23:21 AM
To direct other's lives, they're "retarded children." The elitists would force us to watch opera; others would force us to play cards and drink beer. Nobody is competent to rule others' lives.
But that's the problem, isn't it? It does not matter if they are competent or not - they believe they are competent.
Which is why I appeal to their self-interest: they may think they are qualified to rule others, yes. Lots of people think that, more's the pity. But virtually everyone agrees that others are not qualified to rule them! So we are all already half-anarchist: none of us want to be ruled. I propose then, to the ones with the burning urge to rule, that they restrain themselves, as the price they must pay to escape being ruled over.
Quote
Even if you somehow manage to solve the above problem (I think it is practically impossible), you are still stuck with a society where all conflicts are resolved at the muzzle of a gun...
I've already given several examples of societies in which conflicts were resolved peaceably in the absence of the state. You attempted to define them away, by calling whatever conflict resolution mechanism they adopted, "government." I already pointed out that if you confuse terms in that way, then anarchy also has "governments." It does not, however, have forcible taxation--to give one critical example.
If you're curious, the working definition of government against which anarchy is defined, is Hoppe's. Government is an agency which claims over a territory: monopoly on the use of force; the power to tax; and monopoly of the resolution of disputes, including disputes against itself. The definition isn't quite perfect, because it doesn't cover every possible initiation of aggression, but it captures the vital aspects and covers most of the problem.
Against that definition, anarcho capitalism lacks "governments," even though it has "defense agencies" which strongly resemble governments, because defense agencies: don't have any monopoly powers; are not territorial; lack the power to tax. They can defend me forcibly, or they can defend me using nonviolent dispute resolution, and they will usually choose the latter because it's more profitable. If I don't like my DA, I can immediately choose another, or go without, and I don't have to relocate to do it. They can force payment if I sign an actual contract, but they cannot force the unwilling to pay by citing an imaginary "social" contract.
Quote
As I said before, <rolleyes>, you have to provide WORKABLE ALTERNATIVES to the status quo, to be taken seriously. Otherwise, you come across as just whining about what you see.
Technically, I do not: I'm discussing morality; if we're at cross purposes, it's because you specifically renounced morality some time earlier in the thread. I can point out that rape is immoral, without suggesting an alternative means of satisfying the rapists's needs. And I know beforehand that the rapist will not take me seriously. I'm questioning the foundation of his existence, after all.
--Len.
Post by: Paddy on October 06, 2007, 01:04:39 PM
Now you have developed a judgement of what is, and is not, moral. It is independent and arbitrary. Another culture or society (and the individuals within) may not agree with you. In an Islamic society, for example, it may be immoral for a married woman to show her face, neck, shoulders. However, an honor killing of a daughter by her father may under some circumstances be the only moral thing to do. Morality is contingent on the popular notions within a society. Most Americans consider an honor killing highly immoral. Most Americans, unlike you, do not consider the existence of the U.S. government 'immoral'.
As long as you remain in this country, you are under its jurisdiction and laws. You may attempt to change its laws and/or government, by persuasion or force. Indeed, if you consider the U.S. government 'immoral', it becomes your duty to eliminate it by whatever means, does it not? The government's ownership of jurisdiction over its territory predates your arrival on the scene. The ownership of that jurisdiction does not change simply because Len considers it 'immoral'. That ownership will most probably remain unchanged long after Len and Riley are dust.
Maybe another way to explain this concept to you might be......if you are hiking in wilderness and are confronted with a hungry cougar, it is immoral for her to kill and eat you? You see 'morality' has nothing to do with it. It's a non issue; a non starter; simply not part of the equation. That's the way it is with a governments jurisdiction within its boundaries.
On the lighter side of the news, these $1 billion Blackwater clowns now require babysitters:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21162150/
Post by: Len Budney on October 06, 2007, 01:26:07 PM
Governments, like individuals, may own property.
Only humans can own property. Only humans exist. Corporations, clubs and other organizations are groups of humans. "Club" property is owned by humans. The organization of the club is a contract. A "government," as an organization, can certainly be formed and its members can own property according to contract--but calling their club a "government" doesn't confer on them any authority to steal, kidnap or murder.
--Len.
Post by: Paddy on October 06, 2007, 07:00:58 PM
Quote
Only humans can own property. Only humans exist. Corporations, clubs and other organizations are groups of humans. "Club" property is owned by humans. The organization of the club is a contract. A "government," as an organization, can certainly be formed and its members can own property according to contract--but calling their club a "government" doesn't confer on them any authority to steal, kidnap or murder.
Sorry Len, you're wrong again. Res judicata (see Juristic persons) Corporations, clubs, governments and other organizations are legal entities on par with individuals and can indeed own property. Humans in turn own pieces, franchises, shares of the 'juristic person' in question. Corporations are collectivist enterprises.
Your comment regarding the 'authority to steal, kidnap or murder' is merely subjective and without any legal basis. As I have already pointed out, your opinion re: theft, kidnapping and murder are based on your individual and arbitrary judgments of what is and is not moral.
Furthermore, your ability to advance the cause of libertarianism is seriously in question. In some 350 posts you have yet to persuade anyone here that your vision is desirable. Of course that may not be your motive. Maybe you're only interested in abstract argument as some sort of intellectual exercise. That's ok, too. If, OTOH you are serious, you must understand that libertarian philosophy must first meet and accept reality as such before it can become a viable force.
Good luck.
Post by: Len Budney on October 06, 2007, 11:06:13 PM
Quote
Only humans can own property. Only humans exist. Corporations, clubs and other organizations are groups of humans. "Club" property is owned by humans. The organization of the club is a contract. A "government," as an organization, can certainly be formed and its members can own property according to contract--but calling their club a "government" doesn't confer on them any authority to steal, kidnap or murder.
Sorry Len, you're wrong again. Res judicata (see Juristic persons) Corporations, clubs, governments and other organizations are legal entities on par with individuals and can indeed own property.
In those cases, it is the humans involved doing the owning; the contract(s) defining the organization also dictate the nature of the members' property interest.
Quote
Your comment regarding the 'authority to steal, kidnap or murder' is merely subjective and without any legal basis.
You seem to be talking about a particular legal code--and one which regularly violates the nonagression principle, at that. So what? The idea that Jews should be allowed to live freely is without any basis in the laws of 1930's Germany. The idea that women aren't chattel is without legal basis in the laws of Saudi Arabia. Again, so what?
Quote
As I have already pointed out, your opinion re: theft, kidnapping and murder are based on your individual and arbitrary judgments of what is and is not moral.
OK, so you are on the record believing that theft, kidnapping and murder are (sometimes) moral. I'm sorry to hear that. If you try to act on that belief, your intended victim is within his rights to defend yourself.
Quote
Furthermore, your ability to advance the cause of libertarianism is seriously in question. In some 350 posts you have yet to persuade anyone here that your vision is desirable.
So? After 2,000 years, God has barely managed to persuade anyone that his Son's teachings are the desirable way to shape your life. I'm in good company. It would be absurd to expect a few dozen posts to spark a wave of epiphanies and mass conversions.
--Len.
Post by: CAnnoneer on October 07, 2007, 12:57:32 AM
Which is why I appeal to their self-interest: they may think they are qualified to rule others, yes. Lots of people think that, more's the pity. But virtually everyone agrees that others are not qualified to rule them! So we are all already half-anarchist: none of us want to be ruled. I propose then, to the ones with the burning urge to rule, that they restrain themselves, as the price they must pay to escape being ruled over.
The self-interest you appeal to will tell them to abuse your system to their advantage, rather than obey it. Your system is not stable towards hostile takeover, external competition, or even human avarice and dishonesty. Thus it is impracticable.
Quote
I've already given several examples of societies in which conflicts were resolved peaceably in the absence of the state. You attempted to define them away, by calling whatever conflict resolution mechanism they adopted, "government." I already pointed out that if you confuse terms in that way, then anarchy also has "governments." It does not, however, have forcible taxation--to give one critical example.
If you're curious, the working definition of government against which anarchy is defined, is Hoppe's. Government is an agency which claims over a territory: monopoly on the use of force; the power to tax; and monopoly of the resolution of disputes, including disputes against itself. The definition isn't quite perfect, because it doesn't cover every possible initiation of aggression, but it captures the vital aspects and covers most of the problem.
If you're curious, the working definition of government against which anarchy is defined, is Hoppe's. Government is an agency which claims over a territory: monopoly on the use of force; the power to tax; and monopoly of the resolution of disputes, including disputes against itself. The definition isn't quite perfect, because it doesn't cover every possible initiation of aggression, but it captures the vital aspects and covers most of the problem.
You contradict yourself again. By your given definition of gov, examples include: a family patriarch/matriarch, a church head, a club leader, an employer, etc. When your dad makes you do chores because you live on his property, he is taxing you whether you admit it or not. Tithe, club fees, and added value are the respective examples of taxing for the others. All of them claim different territories and monopoly of force and decision-making. But, ultimately, all are subject to a "supergov" in the face of a local ruler, governor, council of elders, college of bishops etc. There is delegation of authority down the chain of command, whether you like it or not. If you want to call or not call these hierarchic branches "gov" is a semantics argument only.
Quote
Against that definition, anarcho capitalism lacks "governments," even though it has "defense agencies" which strongly resemble governments, because defense agencies: don't have any monopoly powers; are not territorial; lack the power to tax. They can defend me forcibly, or they can defend me using nonviolent dispute resolution, and they will usually choose the latter because it's more profitable. If I don't like my DA, I can immediately choose another, or go without, and I don't have to relocate to do it. They can force payment if I sign an actual contract, but they cannot force the unwilling to pay by citing an imaginary "social" contract.
Who exactly will pay for these "defense agencies" and by what means?
Quote
Technically, I do not: I'm discussing morality; if we're at cross purposes, it's because you specifically renounced morality some time earlier in the thread. I can point out that rape is immoral, without suggesting an alternative means of satisfying the rapists's needs. And I know beforehand that the rapist will not take me seriously. I'm questioning the foundation of his existence, after all.
So you finally admit explicitly that you are just whining. We are finally getting somewhere.
Post by: Iapetus on October 07, 2007, 03:52:43 AM
Against that definition, anarcho capitalism lacks "governments," even though it has "defense agencies" which strongly resemble governments, because defense agencies: don't have any monopoly powers; are not territorial; lack the power to tax. They can defend me forcibly, or they can defend me using nonviolent dispute resolution, and they will usually choose the latter because it's more profitable. If I don't like my DA, I can immediately choose another, or go without, and I don't have to relocate to do it. They can force payment if I sign an actual contract, but they cannot force the unwilling to pay by citing an imaginary "social" contract.
But they can force the unwilling to pay by virtue of them having more guns than you. (And they may claim that there is a social contract, in order to justify their acts).
In which case these "defense agencies that resemble governments" become governments (or empires / bandit chiefdoms / Mafia / etc, depending on how exactly they operate).
Which is is one of the major problems with Anarchy in my mind. With most proposed systems of Anarchy that I have seen, it is either debatable as whether they really are "anarchy" (depending on how you define "archy"), or there is little or nothing to stop them from very rapidly turning into something other than Anarchy. Which would either be some form of government - most likely one that is less controllable and less respectful of individuals' rights than a properly designed constitutional republic/democracy - or else it would be "anarchy" in the sense of complete chaos and lawlessness.
Admittedly, any society/government could be brought down if sufficient people rejected it, or tried to subvert it, or if it was attacked by a sufficiently powerful outside force. But for any form of society/government/absence of either to be viable, it has to be robust enough to survive a reasonable amount of the same.
And I just don't believe Anarchy meets those requirements.
Post by: Len Budney on October 07, 2007, 06:22:54 AM
Which is why I appeal to their self-interest: they may think they are qualified to rule others, yes. Lots of people think that, more's the pity. But virtually everyone agrees that others are not qualified to rule them! So we are all already half-anarchist: none of us want to be ruled. I propose then, to the ones with the burning urge to rule, that they restrain themselves, as the price they must pay to escape being ruled over.
The self-interest you appeal to will tell them to abuse your system to their advantage...
Unlike the current system, which isn't abused to advantage.
Remember, anarchy isn't Utopia. It doesn't have to be perfect; it only has to be better than the current system. You keep wasting your energy proving that it isn't Utopia, which nobody claimed in the first place.
Quote
Quote
If you're curious, the working definition of government against which anarchy is defined, is Hoppe's. Government is an agency which claims over a territory: monopoly on the use of force; the power to tax; and monopoly of the resolution of disputes, including disputes against itself. The definition isn't quite perfect, because it doesn't cover every possible initiation of aggression, but it captures the vital aspects and covers most of the problem.
You contradict yourself again. By your given definition of gov, examples include: a family patriarch/matriarch, a church head, a club leader, an employer, etc.
Reread; that's wildly false. None of those agencies claim territorial monopolies over aggression and the resolution of disputes, nor the power to tax.
Quote
When your dad makes you do chores because you live on his property...
Property rights are non-coercive. Government does not base its claim on legitimate property rights. You're confusing two different things.
Quote
Who exactly will pay for these "defense agencies" and by what means?
Purchasing defense services is no different than purchasing anything else. What are you even asking?
Quote
Quote
Technically, I do not: I'm discussing morality; if we're at cross purposes, it's because you specifically renounced morality some time earlier in the thread. I can point out that rape is immoral, without suggesting an alternative means of satisfying the rapists's needs. And I know beforehand that the rapist will not take me seriously. I'm questioning the foundation of his existence, after all.
So you finally admit explicitly that you are just whining. We are finally getting somewhere.
Wow. Says the rapist to his victim, "Ah, you realize you can't actually defeat me. So all this BS about 'don't!' and 'it's wrong!' is just whining. OK, whiner. Spread em..."
--Len.
Post by: Len Budney on October 07, 2007, 06:23:54 AM
Against that definition, anarcho capitalism lacks "governments," even though it has "defense agencies" which strongly resemble governments, because defense agencies: don't have any monopoly powers; are not territorial; lack the power to tax. They can defend me forcibly, or they can defend me using nonviolent dispute resolution, and they will usually choose the latter because it's more profitable. If I don't like my DA, I can immediately choose another, or go without, and I don't have to relocate to do it. They can force payment if I sign an actual contract, but they cannot force the unwilling to pay by citing an imaginary "social" contract.
But they can force the unwilling to pay by virtue of them having more guns than you.
Unlike the current system, where that isn't done.
--Len.
Post by: CAnnoneer on October 07, 2007, 09:48:28 AM
Unlike the current system, which isn't abused to advantage. Remember, anarchy isn't Utopia. It doesn't have to be perfect; it only has to be better than the current system. You keep wasting your energy proving that it isn't Utopia, which nobody claimed in the first place.
That's fair. But then, you have to show us that what you propose is:
1) workable
2) better than what we have now
You have not shown either yet.
I never said the system should have no problems whatsoever. However, a rational requirement is that the problems can be resolved internally to the system, without breaking its tenets. If that is not achievable, then the system is impracticable.
Quote
Quote
You contradict yourself again. By your given definition of gov, examples include: a family patriarch/matriarch, a church head, a club leader, an employer, etc.
Reread; that's wildly false. None of those agencies claim territorial monopolies over aggression and the resolution of disputes, nor the power to tax.
So long as you live under your dad's roof (territorial monopoly), you do what he says (dispute monopoly) doing your chores (tax), or you get spanked or thrown out (aggression monopoly). Explain how is it then that "dad" does not equal "gov".
Quote
Property rights are non-coercive. Government does not base its claim on legitimate property rights. You're confusing two different things.
You already stumbled over that one and another poster addressed it. Legal entities unlimited to a biological individual have property rights, claims to territory, and coercive capabilities. You can refuse they exist, but the people representing them can kick your ass anytime and physically show you otherwise. So, as stated, your argument is meaningless.
Quote
Purchasing defense services is no different than purchasing anything else. What are you even asking?
So, instead of paying taxes to a gov, you pay protection money to a security company. The latter will probably be far more expensive. If you do not believe that, hire yourself a bodyguard and find out. Another problem under your system would be that if you and Ringo have a dispute, and you hire Darkwater Security and he hires Blackwater Security, the two companies will either clash on your account, or make a deal and leave you hanging. Also, it would be in their interest to merge and monopolize aggression, therefore establishing a new government. You are back to square one.
Quote
Wow. Says the rapist to his victim, "Ah, you realize you can't actually defeat me. So all this BS about 'don't!' and 'it's wrong!' is just whining. OK, whiner. Spread em..."
Non-sequitur. Btw, why do you always end up giving rape analogies? Anyway, if those are the terms in which you think, then your position is:
"Gov, you brutal rapist, you are raping me again and again. I have the option of getting up and leaving, but I don't. I can't say why. I will just remain here, keep my legs wide open, but I will call you names as you have your fun. Meanwhile I will dream about being raped by a gang of 'distributed authority'. "
Post by: Len Budney on October 07, 2007, 10:11:52 AM
So long as you live under your dad's roof (territorial monopoly), you do what he says (dispute monopoly) doing your chores (tax), or you get spanked or thrown out (aggression monopoly). Explain how is it then that "dad" does not equal "gov".
Property rights are not initiation of aggression. The aggressor is the one who violates the rights of the property owner. If you're going to get that confused, the discussion will go in circles. But please realize that it will also be extremely boring: the oldest error in the book is to confuse defense of self and property with initiation of aggression. It isn't novel, interesting or amusing. It serves no discursive purpose, and it's already been done to death.
Quote
Quote
Purchasing defense services is no different than purchasing anything else. What are you even asking?
So, instead of paying taxes to a gov, you pay protection money to a security company.
Sigh. VOLUNTARILY. I can hire any security agency, or NO security agency, as it pleases me. There is no parallel between subscription to security services and taxation.
Quote
The latter will probably be far more expensive.
For many people, it probably would: your security is partly subsidized by funds stolen from others. Paying the full cost of your own security would of course cost more than forcing others at gunpoint to pay it for you. Obviously. On the other hand, you can opt out completely if you have nothing worth stealing, or you can buy high-deductible services, or subcontract emergency-only services through an insurance provider, so you'll have many more options than today. You can't actually say whether a given person will spend more for security or less.
Quote
Quote
Wow. Says the rapist to his victim, "Ah, you realize you can't actually defeat me. So all this BS about 'don't!' and 'it's wrong!' is just whining. OK, whiner. Spread em..."
Non-sequitur. Btw, why do you always end up giving rape analogies?
Initiation of force is initiation of force. Whether you're forcibly seizing 25% of my income, imprisoning me in a cage, or forcibly sodomizing me, you're initiating aggression against my person or property without my consent. All initiation of aggression is the moral equivalent of rape. (This is a good time to point out again: since you have already eschewed moral considerations, the conversation is necessarily meaningless to you. But apparently you haven't quite realized it yet.)
Quote
"Gov, you brutal rapist, you are raping me again and again. I have the option of getting up and leaving, but I don't..."
Do you always blame the victim? I hope none of your loved ones is ever the victim of violence. Your handling of their case will suck, and your relationship will probably be adversely affected.
--Len.
Post by: CAnnoneer on October 07, 2007, 12:01:54 PM
Property rights are not initiation of aggression. The aggressor is the one who violates the rights of the property owner. If you're going to get that confused, the discussion will go in circles. But please realize that it will also be extremely boring: the oldest error in the book is to confuse defense of self and property with initiation of aggression. It isn't novel, interesting or amusing. It serves no discursive purpose, and it's already been done to death.
You are sidestepping the issue. If it helps you think more easily about it, you can view the gov as the property owner in your dad's analogy. The British colonists pushed the Indians out mostly by force of arms. The founding fathers pushed the British gov out by force of arms and established their own gov. Since then, we have had a mostly unbroken chain of switch of ownership up to now. If you want to push the fedgov out, then pick up a rifle and good luck.
Quote
Sigh. VOLUNTARILY. I can hire any security agency, or NO security agency, as it pleases me. There is no parallel between subscription to security services and taxation.
Again sidestepping and going into impracticality. In your society, you can say "Leave me the hell alone and I will defend myself." But in practice, others will be unable to defend themselves, and they will either be victimized or will pay for protection, to an organization that will ultimately become the new gov. Then the new gov will come aknocking on your door, to push you out or tax you. Then you fight them and you lose. So, at best, the system is unstable.
Don't take my word on it. Read some history. This stuff happened to free grazers vs ranchers, and farmers vs the railroads, in a situation that was essentially gov-less. Your type did not fare well at all. Be honest enough to draw to respective conclusions.
Quote
For many people, it probably would: your security is partly subsidized by funds stolen from others. Paying the full cost of your own security would of course cost more than forcing others at gunpoint to pay it for you. Obviously. On the other hand, you can opt out completely if you have nothing worth stealing, or you can buy high-deductible services, or subcontract emergency-only services through an insurance provider, so you'll have many more options than today. You can't actually say whether a given person will spend more for security or less.
Even if you live in a shack in the mountains, eventually there will be people wanting to kick you out or limit you in some way. And there will be those wanting to mess with you just for the heck of it. Even if you are Charles Bronson, at best you'd have to be constantly on the run, hounded like an animal. Even if you are naked in the bush drinking mud water and eating garbage, you'd be in somebody's way eventually.
Quote
Initiation of force is initiation of force. Whether you're forcibly seizing 25% of my income, imprisoning me in a cage, or forcibly sodomizing me, you're initiating aggression against my person or property without my consent. All initiation of aggression is the moral equivalent of rape.
By any definition, some form of aggression will always be present, so long as two individuals have conflicting interests. A well-run society is one that has ways to resolve the conflict in efficient ways with minimal damage and as close to the principle of equivalence as possible. That is why the most successful societies are the ones with good, enforced laws.
Quote
(This is a good time to point out again: since you have already eschewed moral considerations, the conversation is necessarily meaningless to you. But apparently you haven't quite realized it yet.)
You can keep throwing that in my face, but you are only trying to sidestep the practical problems associated with your system. I do not offer moral judgement, just the bare facts that there are people out there that don't share your morality and thus will conflict with you. Your system has to have ways to deal with them, or it will not work. You have offered no practicable solutions to that.
Quote
Do you always blame the victim? I hope none of your loved ones is ever the victim of violence. Your handling of their case will suck, and your relationship will probably be adversely affected.
More non-sequitur. Pointing out that a defenseless party will be victimized is by no means blaming them. It is a neutral statementof fact of nature. What you read in it is your subjective business.
In any case, it seems like you are switching from unsubstantiated preaching to morality attacks, so it looks like the semi-rational discussion is over at this point.
Post by: Matthew Carberry on October 07, 2007, 01:05:50 PM
Quote
If you do not pay taxes, but enjoy rights, services, and privileges, you steal from those that provide you with those by paying their taxes. That is theft.
Aha, the old "free rider problem", which is a fallacy.
If any particular thing is deemed worth doing voluntarily by any individual or group then it is worth doing, the fact that others might benefit is irrelevent to its utility.
If I and 2 other people have businesses on a dirt road and 2 of us do the math and find that paving it will increase our business to the point it is worth the cost, the fact that the 3rd guy will get the benefit is irrelevent.
If it is worth it to us, it's worth it to us even if that guy's lot was vacant and there was no third person to kick in. To demand that the third guy, who does not want the road, should be forced to "kick in his fair share" is childish and petty.
If the lot was vacant and someone comes along later and buys the lot and builds a store, it is equally wrong to demand that they pay retroactively for their "share" of the road cost.
If I am the only one who believes the road is worth doing, and it pencils out, then I should pay to pave the road and not be so petty and selfish as to attempt to force the other two to contribute to a project they don't want to.
Post by: Len Budney on October 07, 2007, 03:38:59 PM
You are sidestepping the issue. If it helps you think more easily about it, you can view the gov as the property owner in your dad's analogy...
That would sidestep the issue. If the government were a property owner, it would have the same rights as any other property owner, but it isn't. You just said, "If it helps you think more easily about it, you can view the rapist as a consensual sex partner..."
Quote
Quote
Sigh. VOLUNTARILY. I can hire any security agency, or NO security agency, as it pleases me. There is no parallel between subscription to security services and taxation.
Again sidestepping and going into impracticality. In your society, you can say "Leave me the hell alone and I will defend myself." But in practice, others will be unable to defend themselves, and they will either be victimized or will pay for protection, to an organization that will ultimately become the new gov.
AN organization? There are lots of security agencies to choose from. You're suggesting, without a shred of proof, that one of them becomes a monopolist and sets itself up as a state.
Quote
Quote
Initiation of force is initiation of force. Whether you're forcibly seizing 25% of my income, imprisoning me in a cage, or forcibly sodomizing me, you're initiating aggression against my person or property without my consent. All initiation of aggression is the moral equivalent of rape.
By any definition, some form of aggression will always be present, so long as two individuals have conflicting interests.
I suppose so; what you keep failing to latch onto is the fact that the aggressor is always in the wrong, and the defender is always in the right. If some idjit attempts to initiate aggression against me, he might be shot by me, or taken down by my security agency, or sanctioned by his security agency.
Quote
A well-run society is one that has ways to resolve the conflict in efficient ways with minimal damage and as close to the principle of equivalence as possible.
A test that governments always fail miserably.
Quote
Quote
(This is a good time to point out again: since you have already eschewed moral considerations, the conversation is necessarily meaningless to you. But apparently you haven't quite realized it yet.)
You can keep throwing that in my face, but you are only trying to sidestep the practical problems associated with your system.
On the contrary, it's why we keep talking past each other. You keep pointing out that there will always be rapists--and I'm willing to concede that, at least for the sake of argument. In response I'm pointing out: that rape is immoral; that putting more rapists in charge would only make things worse; and that shooting rapists in self-defense is always moral. In other words, you say there will always be thieves, and conclude that we must submit ourselves to more thieves, who will rob us systematically, in exchange for protection against competing thieves. I point out that: thieves are immoral; putting thieves in charge is immoral and stupid; and defending oneself against thieves is always moral.
Quote
I do not offer moral judgement, just the bare facts that there are people out there...
Which is why your comments are of no interest. Sure there are thieves. You support them. That makes you at best irrelevant; at worst an accomplice. If the latter, then anyone who defends himself against you using deadly force is acting well within his rights.
--Len.
Post by: Paddy on October 08, 2007, 05:37:01 PM
Quote
If the government were a property owner, it would have the same rights as any other property owner, but it isn't.
OK, who owns the national parks, or the Capitol building, or the Whitehouse, if not the government?
Post by: Len Budney on October 08, 2007, 06:00:35 PM
Quote
If the government were a property owner, it would have the same rights as any other property owner, but it isn't.
OK, who owns the national parks, or the Capitol building, or the Whitehouse, if not the government?
Those properties were seized by force. The one doing the seizing is therefore a thief, and the property in question is stolen. It properly belongs to the ones from whom it was stolen, or to their heirs and assigns. If there are no surviving heirs, the property is unowned and available for homesteading. The thief cannot in such cases homestead the stolen property, however.
--Len.
Post by: Paddy on October 08, 2007, 06:05:48 PM
Quote
If the government were a property owner, it would have the same rights as any other property owner, but it isn't.
OK, who owns the national parks, or the Capitol building, or the Whitehouse, if not the government?
Those properties were seized by force. The one doing the seizing is therefore a thief, and the property in question is stolen. It properly belongs to the ones from whom it was stolen, or to their heirs and assigns. If there are no surviving heirs, the property is unowned and available for homesteading. The thief cannot in such cases homestead the stolen property, however.
--Len.
Under that logic Len, the entire CONUS is stolen property; it was occupied by 'native Americans' prior to the invasion beginning in 1492. You live on stolen property; it does not belong to you. You are an intruder, and under your logic a descendant of whatever tribe occupied the land upon which you squat could morally kill you and your family.
Post by: CAnnoneer on October 08, 2007, 06:23:15 PM
That would sidestep the issue. If the government were a property owner, it would have the same rights as any other property owner, but it isn't. You just said, "If it helps you think more easily about it, you can view the rapist as a consensual sex partner..."
Educate yourself on the issue. The US gov is the single largest landowner in the country.
Quote
AN organization? There are lots of security agencies to choose from. You're suggesting, without a shred of proof, that one of them becomes a monopolist and sets itself up as a state.
Don't take my word on it. Read history and you will convince yourself. In a situation of vacuum of power, several organizations step in and compete. In the long run, one emerges victorious and becomes the gov. It has happened thousands of times. I do not need to recount world history - you can do the reading by yourself. Pay particular attention to early middle-ages and how European nobility was established.
Another way to approach the same point is that under your system, the weak will delegate their defense to protection organizations. Then the only ones with real ability to project force will be these merc outfits. Who will regulate them then? Would they regulate one another? To whose benefit? Why is it to their advantage to maintain your system instead of establishing whatever they desire by force of arms? Why would they prefer to remain dependent on voluntary contributions instead of instituting taxes or racket fees?
Quote
I suppose so; what you keep failing to latch onto is the fact that the aggressor is always in the wrong, and the defender is always in the right. If some idjit attempts to initiate aggression against me, he might be shot by me, or taken down by my security agency, or sanctioned by his security agency.
You will find out that in real life it is not so straightforward to see who the aggressor is. If my farm is upstream to yours and I divert more and more water to my irrigation system, am I being aggressive towards you or just taking advantage of a resource nobody possesses? Will you quietly starve to death when your crops fail, or convince yourself that I am the aggressor and come to kill me in "self-defense"? Ultimately, the historical record is on my side. In particular, read up on early Roman history - note that most expansionist wars were fought in 'self-defense'.
Quote
Quote
A well-run society is one that has ways to resolve the conflict in efficient ways with minimal damage and as close to the principle of equivalence as possible.
A test that governments always fail miserably.
Historically, the lack of central authority has resulted in more loss of life and property.
Quote
In other words, you say there will always be thieves, and conclude that we must submit ourselves to more thieves, who will rob us systematically, in exchange for protection against competing thieves. I point out that: thieves are immoral; putting thieves in charge is immoral and stupid; and defending oneself against thieves is always moral.
I have not said you must submit yourself to anything. I am just giving you the available options (A=gov, B=chaos) and stating that human societies naturally restructure to A out of self-interest. You say that there is a third option C, whose feasibility I have questioned in a rational way. Then you turn back and accuse me of giving moral support to rape.
Quote
Which is why your comments are of no interest. Sure there are thieves. You support them. That makes you at best irrelevant; at worst an accomplice. If the latter, then anyone who defends himself against you using deadly force is acting well within his rights.
Yes, I support and encourage earthquakes and acne, because I say earthquakes will happen and teenagers will have acne.
Post by: Len Budney on October 08, 2007, 06:35:39 PM
That would sidestep the issue. If the government were a property owner, it would have the same rights as any other property owner, but it isn't. You just said, "If it helps you think more easily about it, you can view the rapist as a consensual sex partner..."
Educate yourself on the issue. The US gov is the single largest landowner in the country.
It is a criminal organization that lays invalid claim to over 2/3 of the continental US. That's stolen property.
Quote
Quote
I suppose so; what you keep failing to latch onto is the fact that the aggressor is always in the wrong, and the defender is always in the right. If some idjit attempts to initiate aggression against me, he might be shot by me, or taken down by my security agency, or sanctioned by his security agency.
You will find out that in real life it is not so straightforward to see who the aggressor is. If my farm is upstream to yours and I divert more and more water to my irrigation system, am I being aggressive towards you or just taking advantage of a resource nobody possesses?
You picked a bad example! In that case it's quite easy to determine who the aggressor is. Specifically, the "wild wild west" had a well-developed system of water rights, all created without government intervention, which neatly resolved such disputes. The gun battles over water rights that you've seen in westerns are fiction.
Quote
Quote
Quote
A well-run society is one that has ways to resolve the conflict in efficient ways with minimal damage and as close to the principle of equivalence as possible.
A test that governments always fail miserably.
Historically, the lack of central authority has resulted in more loss of life and property.
You don't even try to back up your sweeping generalizations, do you? I'll see your vague allegation, and raise you six million Jews, ten million kulaks and twenty-five million chinese peasants.
--Len.
Post by: CAnnoneer on October 08, 2007, 06:45:01 PM
The problem with your example is that once X paves the road at his expense, he can legitimately claim that the asphalt is his property. Then Y cannot use the road without making using of something X owns. Then X has the right to say, "pay toll", while Y will say "I didn't ask for it." We end up with trouble.
The example can be taken to the extreme. What if A through Y pool resources and do continual improvements in the infrastructure of the community, while Z digs his heels in and says "I won't pay for any of it!" but he ultimately makes use of the improvements either by necessity or convenience. He becomes a de-facto free-loader. Further, what if Z actually planned it that way all the way?
Post by: Matthew Carberry on October 08, 2007, 06:59:32 PM
If all 3 have a right to use the road pre-paving, then all 3 will retain that right after paving.
Improvements do not necessarily (in the logical sense) remove or modify right of access. It's only when laws are enacted to force participation that such takings become legal.
And, again, who cares if there's a "freeloader"?
If you actually did it without their participation in the first place, then it was obviously worth it for you to do with or without any other participation after the fact.
Saying "well they get a benefit we paid for, they should pay" is just sour grapes.
If it didn't make sense (monetarily) to do without them, you wouldn't have done it, ergo, they aren't "costing" you anything. You are getting the benefit that made it worth doing.
Again, the "free rider problem" only exists when a person holds to a false, juvenile sense of playground "fairness".
Post by: Paddy on October 08, 2007, 07:05:36 PM
Nope, not a problem.
If all 3 have a right to use the road pre-paving, then all 3 will retain that right after paving.
Improvements do not necessarily (in the logical sense) remove or modify right of access. It's only when laws are enacted to force participation that such takings become legal.
And, again, who cares if there's a "freeloader"?
If you actually did it without their participation in the first place, then it was obviously worth it for you to do with or without any other participation after the fact.
Saying "well they get a benefit we paid for, they should pay" is just sour grapes.
If it didn't make sense (monetarily) to do without them, you wouldn't have done it, ergo, they aren't "costing" you anything. You are getting the benefit that made it worth doing.
Again, the "free rider problem" only exists when a person holds to a false, juvenile sense of playground "fairness".
If all 3 have a right to use the road pre-paving, then all 3 will retain that right after paving.
Improvements do not necessarily (in the logical sense) remove or modify right of access. It's only when laws are enacted to force participation that such takings become legal.
And, again, who cares if there's a "freeloader"?
If you actually did it without their participation in the first place, then it was obviously worth it for you to do with or without any other participation after the fact.
Saying "well they get a benefit we paid for, they should pay" is just sour grapes.
If it didn't make sense (monetarily) to do without them, you wouldn't have done it, ergo, they aren't "costing" you anything. You are getting the benefit that made it worth doing.
Again, the "free rider problem" only exists when a person holds to a false, juvenile sense of playground "fairness".
All that's naive bullshit. In a profit driven 'free market' environment any claim that can be made will be made. There is no controlling authority with police powers to say otherwise; ergo: ultimately, in a libertarian society, might makes right.
Prove me wrong.
Post by: CAnnoneer on October 08, 2007, 07:11:05 PM
Post by: Matthew Carberry on October 08, 2007, 07:21:20 PM
Remember, this isn't a lawless anarchy, there is a presumption that the society is a voluntary creation of its residents and that those intelligent people will develop voluntary, impartial, civil means of settling disputes where violations of rights are in dispute.
The key is that no such such civil code can violate something like a Constitution (me being a small-L Constitutionalist) or something like this for hard-core, Capital-L types. http://www.lneilsmith.org/new-cov.html
Post by: wmenorr67 on October 08, 2007, 08:20:27 PM
Post by: Matthew Carberry on October 08, 2007, 08:37:11 PM
Talk about THREAD DRIFT
Is that some kind of dare? Cause if so, I got a whole can of thread drift I can open on your butt.
Post by: K Frame on October 09, 2007, 03:58:14 AM
No, it's an astute observation.
This thread should have been put out of our misery several pages ago.