[quote]NickViar wrote:
[quote]smh_23 wrote:
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
Who will make Sloth pay for that damage? What if there’s a dispute over how much damage occurred or the compensation that should be rendered? [/quote]
Hey, get outta here with that logical thinking witchcraft.[/quote]
What if a Mexican crosses the border, damages an Arizonan’s property, then goes back home? One World Government=the only solution[/quote]
Can you say Missssdirection… Lol, I forgot about this one.
[quote]NickViar wrote:
I can give you the answer to how things should work, but I can’t tell you how they would.
The two parties should attempt to resolve the problem themselves. If that fails, their defense companies(assuming that is what the market creates) should attempt to reach a mutually beneficial agreement. If one or both of the disputants lacks a defense company, then he can deal directly with either the other person or the other person’s company.
[/quote]
And if none of that works, Sloth is just SOL I guess huh?
And a crucial part of a contract is it’s enforceability.
[quote]smh_23 wrote:
[quote]NickViar wrote:
The two parties should attempt to resolve the problem themselves. If that fails, their defense companies(assuming that is what the market creates) should attempt to reach a mutually beneficial agreement. If one or both of the disputants lacks a defense company, then he can deal directly with either the other person or the other person’s company.
[/quote]
And, again, both of them say, “Fuck you, I’m not giving an inch.”
Then what?
War, right?[/quote]
Companies would hire armed men to enforce their contracts. Basically like gangs do. No thanks.
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
[quote]smh_23 wrote:
[quote]NickViar wrote:
The two parties should attempt to resolve the problem themselves. If that fails, their defense companies(assuming that is what the market creates) should attempt to reach a mutually beneficial agreement. If one or both of the disputants lacks a defense company, then he can deal directly with either the other person or the other person’s company.
[/quote]
And, again, both of them say, “Fuck you, I’m not giving an inch.”
Then what?
War, right?[/quote]
Companies would hire armed men to enforce their contracts. Basically like gangs do. No thanks.[/quote]
But then, after a while, people are going to get fed up with the way things are. They’re going to look to sign up with the strongest security company they can find–one that can actually enforce their contracts and settle their disputes and protect them. And this will in turn strengthen the said company, which will then attract more people. And sooner or later, this company will call itself the United Capitalists of America, or whatever it chooses, and it’ll push other companies out by intimidation or buyout or force. And then maybe this company will start paving roads and all that shit–why not? And, because this company will want to please its clients, it will let them choose the higher-ups. And…
Or none of this would happen because the whole thing would be charred to a black crust by war and conquest within months if not days of the dissolution of the United States military.
[quote]smh_23 wrote:
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
[quote]smh_23 wrote:
[quote]NickViar wrote:
The two parties should attempt to resolve the problem themselves. If that fails, their defense companies(assuming that is what the market creates) should attempt to reach a mutually beneficial agreement. If one or both of the disputants lacks a defense company, then he can deal directly with either the other person or the other person’s company.
[/quote]
And, again, both of them say, “Fuck you, I’m not giving an inch.”
Then what?
War, right?[/quote]
Companies would hire armed men to enforce their contracts. Basically like gangs do. No thanks.[/quote]
But then, after a while, people are going to get fed up with the way things are. They’re going to look to sign up with the strongest security company they can find–one that can actually enforce their contracts and settle their disputes and protect them. And this will in turn strengthen the said company, which will then attract more people. And sooner or later, this company will call itself the United Capitalists of America, or whatever it chooses, and it’ll push other companies out by intimidation or buyout or force. And then maybe this company will start paving roads and all that shit–why not? And, because this company will want to please its clients, it will let them choose the higher-ups. And…
Or none of this would happen because the whole thing would be charred to a black crust by war and conquest within months if not days of the dissolution of the United States military.[/quote]
Lol, yup pretty much this.
[quote]smh_23 wrote:
No.
We know exactly how ubiquitous contract disputes would be–and that’s how ubiquitous they are now.
And that’s very ubiquitous.
Actually, with the parties knowing that their contracts mean jack shit and are almost invariably unenforceable, they’d likely be much, much more ubiquitous.
Whereas incidences of cross-border vandalism are virtually not existent.
So that point kind of slips away from you in a big way.[/quote]
I make and honor agreements all the time. Most people I know do the same. What kind of idiot would make a contract with someone who wasn’t going to honor it? Without big brother promising to enforce the contract that your stupidity made, don’t you think you would be selective about whom you made contracts with?
There’s also the matter of many current disputes being so insignificant that nobody would even worry about them without a socialized police force to back them.
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
Companies would hire armed men to enforce their contracts. Basically like gangs do. No thanks.[/quote]
If that happens, it differs from police departments and military in what way?
[quote]smh_23 wrote:
But then, after a while, people are going to get fed up with the way things are. They’re going to look to sign up with the strongest security company they can find–one that can actually enforce their contracts and settle their disputes and protect them. And this will in turn strengthen the said company, which will then attract more people. And sooner or later, this company will call itself the United Capitalists of America, or whatever it chooses, and it’ll push other companies out by intimidation or buyout or force. And then maybe this company will start paving roads and all that shit–why not? And, because this company will want to please its clients, it will let them choose the higher-ups. And…
Or none of this would happen because the whole thing would be charred to a black crust by war and conquest within months if not days of the dissolution of the United States military.[/quote]
It would then be time to get rid of that defense company, right? Or would you say to it, “Go ahead, sir, take my guns. I will ask your permission for everything. You don’t have to listen to your clients anymore, because now you can rob us…?” This nightmare scenario you imagine for a stateless society is exactly what the state is in the best of circumstances. You seem to indicate you wouldn’t be happy with a private company doing the things our government does, so why let the government?
I will give you one thing: I believe you’ve admitted you’re a Democrat. At least you knowingly oppose freedom. The sad thing is that many Republican voters, who believe they are pro-freedom, have the exact same fear of freedom, for the same reasons. I have no idea why they continue participating in what this country has become.
People are flawed, so no system can work perfectly, and no system will work forever. However, I can’t help but think it would be better to start with a system that consistently opposes theft and the initiation of violence, and doesn’t just tell one group, “Only you can rob and kill us.”
If someone is a smoker between age 18 and 25, should he quit, in hopes of improving his health, or should he just keep on smoking, since stopping would not guarantee him better health or an infinite lifespan?
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
[quote]NickViar wrote:
I can give you the answer to how things should work, but I can’t tell you how they would.
The two parties should attempt to resolve the problem themselves. If that fails, their defense companies(assuming that is what the market creates) should attempt to reach a mutually beneficial agreement. If one or both of the disputants lacks a defense company, then he can deal directly with either the other person or the other person’s company.
[/quote]
And if none of that works, Sloth is just SOL I guess huh?
And a crucial part of a contract is it’s enforceability.
[/quote]
I don’t think I’ve ever said that everybody other than the defense company would give up the right to defend themselves and their property, have I? I can’t imagine people voluntarily doing that(at least not people who had to support themselves-I can certainly imagine it if a majority vote, which included votes from those who have zero value to society as equal to those who contribute the most to society, was accepted).
At best, statelessness would be far better than a state; at worst, statelessness would turn in to a state.
[quote]NickViar wrote:
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
Companies would hire armed men to enforce their contracts. Basically like gangs do. No thanks.[/quote]
If that happens, it differs from police departments and military in what way?
[/quote]
The police department looks out for all persons within their jurisdiction. They follow a set of rules determined by their civilian leadership and everyone gets due process. Your hired thugs would only look out for their employer.
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
The police department looks out for all persons within their jurisdiction. They follow a set of rules determined by their civilian leadership and everyone gets due process. Your hired thugs would only look out for their employer. [/quote]
True. - YouTube
[quote]NickViar wrote:
I will give you one thing: I believe you’ve admitted you’re a Democrat. At least you knowingly oppose freedom. [/quote]
When was this? I’m not a Democrat. And what I knowingly oppose is head-in-ass disease.
[quote]NickViar wrote:
I have no idea why they continue participating in what this country has become.
[/quote]
Probably for the same reasons that, despite your many and well-rehearsed complaints, you still live here and pay taxes to the government. Which means that you support the government–literally, you contribute to its endurance. So what does that say about you?
[quote]smh_23 wrote:
[quote]NickViar wrote:
I have no idea why they continue participating in what this country has become.
[/quote]
Probably for the same reasons that, despite your many and well-rehearsed complaints, you still live here and pay taxes to the government. Which means that you support the government–literally, you contribute to its endurance. So what does that say about you?[/quote]
That I have family here, and that a one man rebellion is just called a crime.