A Mercenary Military?

[Len Budney]

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.

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.

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.

[Paddy]

Governments, like individuals, may own property.  Jurisdiction over its territory is a right owned by the government of that territory. The power of jurisdiction runs appurtenant to the land.  It is inseparable. All persons within that territory fall under the jurisdiction of that government. The form or type of government is not relevant to its ownership of jurisdiction within its boundaries.  It could be a democracy, theocracy, republic, aristocracy, monarchy, or dictatorship. Its boundaries could change, or the entire government could change.  There could be a revolution, a coup, defeat in a war, whatever government emerges then owns that jurisdiction.

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/

[Len Budney]

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.

[Paddy]

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. 

 

[Len Budney]

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.

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?

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.

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.

[CAnnoneer]

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

[Iapetus]

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.

[Len Budney]

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

[Len Budney]

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.

[CAnnoneer]

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.

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".

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.

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.

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'. "

[Len Budney]

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.

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.

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.

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.)

"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.

[CAnnoneer]

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.

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.

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.

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.

(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.

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.

[Matthew Carberry]

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.

[Len Budney]

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..."

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.

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.

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.

(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.

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.

[Paddy]

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?

[Len Budney]

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.

[Paddy]

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. 

[CAnnoneer]

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.

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?

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'.

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.

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. 

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. 

[Len Budney]

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.

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.

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.

[CAnnoneer]

carebear,

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?

[Matthew Carberry]

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".

[Paddy]

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".

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.

[CAnnoneer]

stupid thing deleted all my writeup <grrrr>

[Matthew Carberry]

If there was a pre-exisiting right of all parties to travel on the road then any attempt by the others to impinge on that right would be unlawful.

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

[wmenorr67]

Talk about THREAD DRIFT