You are aware that people lived in cooperation with each other before government ever existed? Why is this so hard for you to understand?
[/quote]
I highlighted this because you still have yet to even comment on it with all your “historical knowledge” that you supposedly paid attention to in school and I didn’t.
In fact, people have lived longer without government than with it. Gangsterism was all around I bet.
It is my example because these people “opted out” of the modern world and government to live the way they choose. It’s actually a really good example of a voluntary society. I personally don’t agree with the way they might live, but they, as like minded individuals, chose this way of life. It’s quite often that people living within Amish communities leave it to try their hand in the “modern world” only to return to it because it is a simpler way of life. No one is held hostage in these communities.
Yep, they have rules that they chose to have, which is exactly what a voluntary society is. Do you have the slightest clue what a voluntary society is?
We have rights because market forces exist in anarchist/voluntary societies. You know, they sort of need to exist so I can purchase goods or services or provide them with my own job skills. You admitted as much in a previous post. Why the confusion?
Why must you keep mentioning god or a lack thereof? What does he/she/it have to do with humans existing peacefully? Do I need a fairy-tale book or some sayings carved on stone tablets to remind me to treat other humans with dignity?
Basic, free market forces.
Perhaps it wouldn’t be if we didn’t live in a society that “tells” you from the time we are born that you need government to survive.
Every mention of anarchism in our sanitized public school system sounds eerily similar to the nonsense you have been espousing.
The phenomenon are the examples I gave above which you called “idiotic”. The fact that you keep ignoring is that people lived longer without government than with it.
Individuals living in Amish communities are free to leave if they want. You don’t know what you are talking about.
More importantly, it doesn’t matter. They chose that way of life and have collectively decided on these rules.
Yeah, the amish slaughter each other daily.
…“sometimes it isn’t”. A government can justify its power or it can’t. Threatening me to pay taxes or go to prison is not justifiable. Especially when economic forces (competition) - there’s that pesky economy again that won’t go away - can provide superior infrastructure and services than any piece of garbage the government can come up with.
A “what if” scenario. As with the amish or any other community of like minded individuals - you know, Voluntarism - rules and a code of ethics can exist, which would dictate you would have to pay the lawsuit or be punished for it.
Or, since you signed a contract and understood the consequences, I could simply use the private arbiter (from the contract we signed) to collect for me. No the state would not be needed.
I didn’t decide this and neither did you. We just happened to be born here and go about are daily lives within the system. Unless you know something I don’t. When did we decide to institute the state?
And you still have not given an explanation of when or how it can justify its use of force.
LOL! Who, the Founders? The people who were actually involved in implementing the government. Of course they are going to say that it is justifiable. Well done Thunder, great example!
Childish? You described my previous statements as “idiotic”. You shouldn’t throw stones Thunder.
And of course you are a statist. You defend the US government all the time. You defended Bush’s invasion of Iraq, a blatant violation of international law that your government chooses to adhere to when it suits it. Bush did his utmost to piss on the constitution that you claim to be all for, yet you defended him on countless occasions.
Your mind reading skills suck. I’m all for smaller government along the path to no government at all. If anyone in the current political arena displays the same opinion then I will usually support them.
As is your constant defense of the state.
Usually they were crushed with violent force. As an example, just look at America’s violent history of labor disputes. These people just wanted to work in decent conditions and get paid a fair amount. They got the crap beat out of them for going on strike. Do you think the US government is going to allow people to “opt out” of the state?
One of the few Founders I actually respect, Thomas Jefferson, constantly warned us about government and letting it get out of control. He would be considered whacky libertarian by today’s (your) standards.
rolls eyes
Oh, of course not. Is your memory that short?
He constantly whined that the government wasn’t big enough and that we needed central banking. I could care less what he did or what he was a part of.
Some, like Jefferson, made numerous statements supporting small government.
And none of them would have supported a loony tune like President Bush and his trampling of civil liberties or wars of aggression. You, on the other hand, openly supported the nutcase.
Similar to Jefferson, he was also for small government, which I already said is a start. Ultimately, I hope it leads to people understanding they need no government…the opinions of the Founders aside.
Dustin, Dunder, et al, are statists. They thrive on coercion. You cannot reason with people who think they are right because they are “stronger” than you. Of course, they can only make these claims from behind a keyboard.
As you have seen, they could not argue themselves out of a wet paper bag with a butter knife and instead must resort to “might makes right” fallacies.
[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:
<<< I am far from obsessed with the Founding Fathers and what they would have wanted. They are long dead, and don’t have to deal with any of this anymore. I also do not believe that this country must be saddled with the responsibility of strictly adhering to ideas of long dead men, especially if they find a better way to do it. >>>[/quote]
Now we’re getting somewhere.
The constitutional republic they left us IS the United States. It’s those principles that made this country what it is and soon to be was. It’s not a piece of land, it’s not a flag, it’s those principles. When people say “I pledge allegiance to the flag” that is referring to those principles that it represents, not a decorative cloth. Or at least it used to.
It’s those principles, recognizing the God given natural rights of all men that made us mighty and prosperous, not to mention the envy of the world. Principles of individual responsibility, self determination and freedom from any more legislative force than is necessary to protect that state of affairs. That is what all those constitutional limitations on federal oversight are all about.
THAT my friend IS the United States of America. Reject those principles and you reject this nation in favor of some other nation where this one once stood and remains in name only. I actually have far more respect for people who just say that, because then we can have a discussion like grownups. To claim to love this country, but despise everything that made her great is a sign of either retardation or deceit.
So fine, you don’t wanna get all hung up on what a bunch of old fogies from a bygone era thought about stuff. That’s been pretty obvious all along, but now you said it. I repeat, now we are getting somewhere. So go ahead and tell me how ridiculous it is that those admittedly brilliant men be expected to lay down principles in the 18th century that would still be efficacious in the 21st.
The constitutional republic they left us IS the United States. It’s those principles that made this country what it is and soon to be was. It’s not a piece of land, it’s not a flag, it’s those principles. When people say “I pledge allegiance to the flag” that is referring to those principles that it represents, not a decorative cloth. Or at least it used to.
It’s those principles, recognizing the God given natural rights of all men that made us mighty and prosperous, not to mention the envy of the world. Principles of individual responsibility, self determination and freedom from any more legislative force than is necessary to protect that state of affairs. That is what all those constitutional limitations on federal oversight are all about.
THAT my friend IS the United States of America. Reject those principles and you reject this nation in favor of some other nation where this one once stood and remains in name only. I actually have far more respect for people who just say that, because then we can have a discussion like grownups. To claim to love this country, but despise everything that made her great is a sign of either retardation or deceit.
So fine, you don’t wanna get all hung up on what a bunch of old fogies from a bygone era thought about stuff. That’s been pretty obvious all along, but now you said it. I repeat, now we are getting somewhere. So go ahead and tell me how ridiculous it is that those admittedly brilliant men be expected to lay down principles in the 18th century that would still be efficacious in the 21st.[/quote]
See, this is where all of you get hung up and fucked up.
The Founding Fathers did not all think alike- not by a longshot. They got together and settled and compromised to come up with a Constitution, yes- one that could be added to. They set up the system that I like- I’m a fan of a constitutional republic.
However, you can use all the crybaby bullshit rhetoric you want, but recent history has proven that massive corporations without oversight do nothing but demolish the freedoms you care so much about. They buy off politicians, they change legislation, and take away everything that the founders worked for.
Things have changed radically since 1776. The stocks and finance sector was not anywhere near what it is today, and it didn’t affect the people. The founders would laugh at allowing these companies (that have fucked us all so badly) operate without any oversight after this disaster they’ve just caused.
What you guys keep saying is the same strawmen they use in the “This Country was based on christianity”- a bunch of raving lunatics who don’t fuckin read history and don’t know that the founders were not in favor of a lot of crap that people think they were.
The fact is, all this “personal responsibility” shit sounds all pleasant and BANG! AMERICAN! But that ain’t what it was about. Tons of Americans who were really fucking responsible lost their money and their jobs because of the combination of greedy Wall Streeters and retarded consumers. A man is no longer his own island- everything is intertwined.
Big Business has far exceeded the reach the founders ever thought it could have. Government has responded by expanding when Big Business causes financial disasters. This is only common sense. It has nothing to do with whether the principles the country was founded are are valid or not- of course they are. But they must be built upon, because the world has changed.
If you want to keep thinking that everyone in America is a noble farmer doing their best, be my guest. But you and the rest of the lunatic fringe are so out of touch with reality it’s laughable.
[quote]“Only a virtuous people are capable of freedom. As nations become corrupt and vicious, they have more need of masters.”
“Whereas true religion and good morals are the only solid foundations of public liberty and happiness . . . it is hereby earnestly recommended to the several States to take the most effectual measures for the encouragement thereof.”[/quote] Benjamin Franklin Continental Congress, 1778
This quote from Franklin, who was NO Christian, is the sum of what was assumed to be essential to the vitality and survival of the nation under the form of government they set in motion.
The halls of power would necessarily reflect the people who put them there. It is the above absolutely foundational principle shared by Franklin and many others who would not have called themselves adherents of the Christian religion… (along with many who would) and it’s abandonment, that is the penultimate answer to everything in your post. Everything. Public and private.
[quote]I highlighted this because you still have yet to even comment on it with all your “historical knowledge” that you supposedly paid attention to in school and I didn’t.
In fact, people have lived longer without government than with it. Gangsterism was all around I bet. [/quote]
What is left to comment on? You have provided examples of small, community-based societies that had governments. Prior to the rise of agriculture, there were hunter-gatherer societies that were small, community-oriented tribes, but still had government, particularly demonstrated when they went to war (yes, Virginia, they went to war).
What you keep producing are societies with governments different than our modern one - which is (obviously) not the same as presenting a society with no government.
You haven’t provided a single example of a society that has no government and at the same time allows you to fully enjoy the rights of life, liberty, conscience, and property.
Super duper - but that isnâ??t an example of a society with no government; you have provided examples of society who simply opted for a different kind of government than a large, representative-based republic.
Sure I do - it is a silly fiction invented as a proxy to complain about “modern” society - exactly like Marxism.
We are still stuck at square one, because you have no clue as to the issue.
As I explained to Lifticus, if your “rights” have no basis other than a reliance upon Contracts - which you are suggesting - then they arenâ??t Natural Rights, and they are only “rights” to the extent the Contract can be enforced. Moreover, if they find their origin in Contract, they are only as good as the Contract itself, so if the Contract changes, so do your rights.
Back to the beginning - if we change those Contract rights to allow for taxation, and there are no Natural rights to violate, then taxation isn’t theft - the terms of the Contract have merely changed.
You are right about one thing - such rights do need to exist so you can purchase goods and services. The questions are where do they come from and how are they enforced. With no government, you have no ability to enforce the Contract outside of your ability to stand up to the guy breaching that contract - and so we are back to the original problem of Anarchism: it is nothing more than a Rule by Naked Force.
Because, that is exactly the conundrum I posed that hasn’t been answered - what are your rights based on? If you don’t think they are based on any Higher Power, no problem - then what? The Social Contract?
If so - see above. You still haven’t answered the question, and I suspect it is because you have never put any thought into the answer. Again, no problem - but don’t pretend like you answered it.
Market forces do not create fundamental rights.
Nope, even before mass media committing the awful atrocities you never stop whining about, human beings rejected Anarchism.
First it was pop culture - now it is â??our sanitized public school systemâ??. Can you stay focused?
Oh, and by the way, Anarchism doesn’t much get a mention in public school for the exact same reasons Phrenology doesn’t either.
False and completely dishonest. You picked out isolated, fractionally small communities that still have government, while conveniently ignoring the entire thread of human history that refutes your juvenile politics.
I’ve ignored nothing, and my point was vindicated by your admission that no Anarchic society has ever been viable for long due to the inherent “badness” of Men. See below for your hoisting yourself by your own petard.
But the point is the Amish don’t allow the free rights of life, liberty, conscience, and property. You enjoy none of those freedoms within the society - if you remain in, you sacrifice all the rights you claim a Voluntary Society is supposed to honor.
If the Amish collectively decided on such rules, no problem - that is precisely what a large-scale social republic does.
If a court empowers a sheriff to put a lien on my property to satisfy a judgment against me because I breached a contract, then that is the justified use of force - the government is enforcing a contractual right.
A government has a statutory right to part of your income - if you donâ??t pay it, you break the law. That is a just use of force - why? Because gave the government the power to do so. We consented. Donâ??t like it? Call your Congressman. That doesnâ??t mean the law is - sniff - “unjust”.
How would your third party arbiter collect for you without the use of force?
The Founders, which you appeal to in your defense of Anarchism earlier, are now mean old statists who were trying to bash your head in with government? You are hopelessly inconsistent, and hopelessly confused.
There is nothing inconsistent about calling your comments “childish” and your ideology “idiotic”.
I laughed till I nearly cried.
Here we have Dustin the Anarchist whining that Bush [b]violated international law[/b]??? Newsflash - Anarchists donâ??t believe in international law. “International law” is the very antithesis of Anarchy, and here you are appealing to a disrespect of it.
I have seen bad around here, but this takes the taco.
And, as for Bush and the constitution, I find it weird that you yet again appeal to a document that empowers the federal government you so despise and think illegitimate, but I am happy to argue that in a different thread with someone who knows what they are talking about. Can you recommend someone?
[quote]That is the problem with looneytarian anarchists like yourself - you think there exists “anarchists” and “statists” and no one else, and you foist strawmen arguments on folks who fit neither category because, due to your limitations, you don’t have any canned responses to those that don’t fit your bizarrely simplistic paradigm.
Your mind reading skills suck. I’m all for smaller government along the path to no government at all. If anyone in the current political arena displays the same opinion then I will usually support them. [/quote]
I left my quote in for context. You keep trying to argue as if there are two choices â?? no government and nothing short of full blown socialism, and you argue in accordance with this piss poor assumption. I am neither anarchist nor statist, similar to most people.
Heh. This has almost become parody.
Your precious attempts at Anarchist Utopia have failed because, in your own words, “they were crushed with violent force.” You donâ??t say! And who was it doing the crushing with the violent force?
Why, other human beings. And to think, just earlier you said that humans would live peacefully and in harmony if only given the chance.
You have disproven your own thesis. And proven mine.
This wraps up nicely all your terrible arguments â?? after all, by your own admission, history is replete with failed attempts at Anarchic Societies because other human beings violently crushed them - i.e., they refused to respect their rights. So, in one fell swoop, by your own hand, we learn that I have been right this whole time w/r/t Manâ??s incompatibility to live in your silly paradise.
And the truth shall set you free, Dustin.
On again, off again, with the respect due the Founders. You can love TJ all you want, but he, too, was no anarchist.
Hamilton envisioned a large commercial republic big enough to ward off takeovers from foreign powers â?? a legitimate concern at that time with an infant nation, even as someone might disagree with him.
You are confused, yet again - limited government and anarchism/monarchism are not the same. Oh, and TJ staunchly supported public education.
TJ, you filthy statist!
Madison, like the other non-anti-Federalists, were making arguments to strengthen the federal government. The debate was over “how strong?” should it be, but make no mistake, they were all raging statists by your (dim) lights.
As such, either they were right, or you are. You cannot reconcile your ideology with theirs, period. Just move along before you embarrass yourself further.
The halls of power would necessarily reflect the people who put them there. It is the above absolutely foundational principle shared by Franklin and many others who would not have called themselves adherents of the Christian religion… (along with many who would) and it’s abandonment, that is the penultimate answer to everything in your post. Everything. Public and private.[/quote]
Way to dodge that fuckin bullet with a clever quote.
It’s not an answer for anything addressed in my post.
Dustin, Dunder, et al, are statists. They thrive on coercion. You cannot reason with people who think they are right because they are “stronger” than you. Of course, they can only make these claims from behind a keyboard.
As you have seen, they could not argue themselves out of a wet paper bag with a butter knife and instead must resort to “might makes right” fallacies.[/quote]
Sure thing, Lifty. We always get the same yawner out of you when you have run out of gas. I could have written this for you.
The halls of power would necessarily reflect the people who put them there. It is the above absolutely foundational principle shared by Franklin and many others who would not have called themselves adherents of the Christian religion… (along with many who would) and it’s abandonment, that is the penultimate answer to everything in your post. Everything. Public and private.
Way to dodge that fuckin bullet with a clever quote.
It’s not an answer for anything addressed in my post. [/quote]
Here are Franklin’s [quote]“masters”[/quote]. Only they’re corrupt too.
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
I highlighted this because you still have yet to even comment on it with all your “historical knowledge” that you supposedly paid attention to in school and I didn’t.
In fact, people have lived longer without government than with it. Gangsterism was all around I bet.
What is left to comment on? You have provided examples of small, community-based societies that had governments. Prior to the rise of agriculture, there were hunter-gatherer societies that were small, community-oriented tribes, but still had government, particularly demonstrated when they went to war (yes, Virginia, they went to war).
[/quote]
They had rules established within their community that they consented/agreed to. If you can’t see the difference between that and illegitimate state power, then I can’t help you.
And so what if they fought each other? This “government” you speak of, was established by the community itself, not arbitrarily by state power.
What I have presented to you are societies that functioned, on their own, without meddling from state power. What rules the societies came up with on their own was up to them. These are true voluntary societies that have established rules at a grass roots level. Do you understand the difference or do I need to keep repeating myself?
I have provided you with examples. The Amish set rules on their own, not by the state. They are free to pursue what ever they want. This is Voluntarism / Anarchism; the people of the community governing themselves.
It’s an example of societies that I have been talking about since this thread started. They govern themselves they way they see fit without the state. Your reading comprehension is that of an infant.
Voluntarism makes perfect sense because you and I would be determining our own destiny within a free market structure. It’s silly in your mind because you honestly think you need the government to survive.
There is no reliance on anything other than market forces functioning without state intervention. The contracts you speak f are only in certain instances. I don’t need one to buy produce at the corner store. If the prices suck, I can to the next place.
Free market forces will lead to instant order. The rights are “natural” because they have to exist for the market to function.
We don’t need contractual rights for the market to function. And once again, it is theft because we don’t need taxation by the state to provide services or infrastructure. Businesses could easily provide this in competition with each other, which would yield superior products.
If they don’t exist, then we are back to the barter system. The market dictates that these rights exist, government has nothing to with it.
If we were living in a cave, grunting at each other, then this question would be valid. Today, individuals with a functioning brain can probably come to the extremely complex conclusions that killing is bad.
They have to exist or else there is no economy or market forces.
No they didn’t. In fact, they have always rejected centers of power stealing from them or worse.
Why would state sponsored public schools devote any amount of time to a philosophy that exposes the state for the criminal structure that is?
I pointed out societies that function on their own and govern themselves without the state making their decisions. This is exactly what I have been arguing about from the beginning.
You cherry pick this vast historical knowledge you claim to have to argue your point.
They most certainly do because they govern themselves. I have said this how many times now? You’re clueless as to how voluntary societies function.
This same scenario could exist within a voluntary society and government would not be needed to enforce it.
The government has no right to my income. The above paragraph is nothing but statist nonsense.
I’m assuming the sentence is supposed to say, “why? Because we gave the government the power to do so”. And no we didn’t. The government has this power because it has bigger guns than we do. That is horrible argument and just shows the government can’t justify force at all. I thought you would at least try to BS your way through a better explanation than that.
And what the hell is my congressman going to do?
It would use force because the contract you signed authorized it. The “use of force” to collect it would be who ever the 3rd party arbiter has working for them. If you don’t think it is fair, you should have read the fine print. I’m sure this is beyond your realm of comprehension how this would work in a voluntary society with a functioning free market.
I only mentioned them because you claimed to be all about the Founders, yet you are/were a supporter of a maniac in President Bush. I mentioned that some were advocates of small government, i.e "the Night Watchman’. This is, of course, polar opposite of your politics. Nothing inconsistent in my argument.
No, you are correct. You are consistently a douche bag to people who don’t follow your rigid world view. Quite typical of a “Christian” such as yourself.
I live in the US, which is not a voluntary society last I checked. The government, that you support to no end, claims to be about freedom, democracy and obeying international law. The US government is fraud as it does whatever it wants, when it wants, the rest of the world be damned. As long as I live here, I’m going to point out that hypocrisy. And As an anarchist, why would I not point this out? It doesn’t mean I respect any international governing body. I’m just holding the government accountable for what it claims to be and how it actually functions…you know, since I live here.
Do you lack the most elementary reading comprehension skills? I bring it up because you claim to be in close agreement with the Founders, yet supported a President who was nothing of the sort. So what is it? Are you a classical liberal, ala the Founders, or a statist nutcase like Bush. I’m simply pointing out the inconsistencies in your argument that you avoid answering.
You have nothing to say about supporting Bush’s numerous mistakes, but yet, you are just like the Founders politically. You make no sense.
Let me highlight this so you can not dodge it. You said the above.
I said the paragraph below:
Now, you said this:
How did you construe this from what I said in the paragraph I just highlighted?
I think anarchism is the best possible scenario, but I know it won’t happen overnight. So, if someone comes along, like a Ron Paul running for President who is favor of small government and fiscal conservatism, I will usually support them.
You are a statist because you constantly defend the government. Your support of George W. Bush, as an example, is hilarious. If your memory is short, i can perform a search for you and highlight your inconsistencies.
People, usually in some type of uniform, you know, to make it look “legit”, working for the government. Who would of guessed?
You are mildly retarded aren’t you? People, with guns, working for the government, have crushed attempts to overthrow centers of power or to opt out of the government. The only thing you have been right about is that there will always be state apologists (fascists), like yourself, who would be all too happy to crack the skulls of anyone who steps out of line. There will always be those deranged statists like the Gestapo or NKVD that will carry out orders of the state. That doesn’t mean that other people will not want to govern themselves.
Nice attempt at “winning” the argument. I think this is one of the methods Lifty spoke of in, “how to win an argument in the PWI forum” thread.
Read again what I said. He would definitely be a libertarian by today’s standards. Your losing your mind.
You mean “minarchism”? Government serves as a “nightwatchman”, providing only minimal infrastructure? Sounds like Jefferson. And I’m sure his vision of “publik edumucasion” is exactly like what we have now…since it is so great.
What they said and what they accomplished are nearly obsolete today. I only stated that I respected Jefferson because he saw the dangerous potential of what he helped to implement. I’m not reconciling my beliefs with theirs and I never attempted to. You mentioned how your politics were so similar to the Founders and I pointed out how that was a load of crap, with your undying support of those who use the constitution as toilet paper.
Your embarrassing yourself with your inability to grasp basic foundations of the free market. You ignore my statements that you are a supporter of statist loony tunes and you ignore my very simple explanations and examples of successful voluntary societies.
I will not bother responding until you address those aspects of the debate.
And? This is no different than a democratic form of government - we consent to a number of state powers, the exact same rules-based structure as do the Amish. We just create rules to protect other priorities - but they are rules nonetheless. You just seem to have your panties in a wad because you donâ??t get to decide, as an original matter, whether or not to live under the decisions of democratic choices made in the past.
You make a false distinction by creating a construct of Government versus State Power. They are one and the same, as long as the community/society remains sovereign to grant or remove the power.
What you cannot seem to grasp is that the communities you romanticize about most certainly had State Power, as you describe it. The Amish had/has community and religious elders than run the community and strict codes of behavior are enforced. Did they come up with the rules? Surely, but we came up with our rules as well. You may not like our rules, you may think our rules over-invasive or foolish, but both sets of rules arise from Agreed Upon Consent - your fantasizing aside.
You are not making a credible distinction. Repeating yourself does no good if you keep repeating an error.
Bullshit â?? in not a one of your examples can you own and trade property as you personally see fit, worship as you please, express yourself as you please, or otherwise enjoy the Natural Rights of Liberty you claim to exist. In each society you reference, these Natural Rights of Liberty are circumscribed on behalf of the greater good, precisely in opposition to your Utopia. That they were circumscribed by way of group consent is irrelevant to the denial of rights, for they are a denial all the same and democratic majorities â?? even tiny ones â?? are not supposed to be able to circumscribe these rights on behalf of the greater good (a fiction in Anarchism).
As such, you still havenâ??t provided me with a single example of an Anarchic society that, to repeat, allows you the full enjoyment of your Individual Rights of Liberty. You have provided examples of small, grassroots based communities that force you to give up all your Rights of Liberty based on democratic consent, the opposite of what I am asking for.
And you continue to provide a false example because you produce societies, that, in fact, have a State. In each society, there is an overarching hierarchy of both governance and rules-based norms that the members must abide by or risk punishment. Just because they donâ??t have a massive bureaucracy does not mean that no State exists. In these societies, you cannot do whatever you want because the State in place wonâ??t let you. As such, you still have not provided a legitimate example.
Of course I think I need government to survive â?? as has every single durable society from hunter-gathering tribes to modern society. A free market is only as good as its inherent ability to protect and preserve property rights, and with no government, your dynamic free market would be DOA.
The first rule of production is that before any entrepreneur undertakes the effort to provide a good or service, he has to know that the sanctity of agreements he has made with his input producers and customers will be enforceable. Otherwise, the risk is too high. In an Anarchic market, contract rights are only aspirational â?? you simply hope people make good and you have no legal remedy to secure your production. As such, commerce is essentially stillborn.
Any smart entrepreneur â?? I know, I am complicating things in your dim brain by actually appealing to real world scenarios â?? would not raise capital and plow capital into production is he had no assurances that his property rights (contractual and otherwise) would be enforced.
[quote]There is no reliance on anything other than market forces functioning without state intervention. The contracts you speak f are only in certain instances. I don’t need one to buy produce at the corner store. If the prices suck, I can to the next place.
Free market forces will lead to instant order. The rights are “natural” because they have to exist for the market to function. [/quote]
I think I see the problem â?? I keep asking foundational questions about the nature of Rights and you have no idea what I am talking about.
Natural Rights exist whether we have a functioning market or not, because they are natural â?? you seem to suggest that the existence of a market creates Rights. Incorrect, you have it backwards. You have to have the Rights in place before a market can function, because producers and consumers will not take risks with putting their property in jeopardy.
Rights are claims over other men whether those other men want to abide by them or not. In an Anarchic society, your Rights are nothing more than Hopes that other men will do the right thing. In the course of human history, civilization has never been predicated on the assumption that other men will always do the right thing â?? one of civilizationâ??s wisest choices in order to preserve liberty.
This is amateurism at its best. Whether or not taxation is Theft or not is not determined by whether there is a better political alternative â?? if we consent to taxation, it categorically is not Theft because we have authorized a statutory right to income. Whether we need taxation or not has nothing to do with whether or not it violates a law and is some kind of Theft. Good Lord.
No, because property rights are still necessary in a barter system. Havent done much reading on this, have you?
Fascinating â?? now you are arguing we have advanced in our behavior toward one another throughout history to render the question about Rights essentially moot, but you decry modern society as treasonous toward our roots of Anarchism. Hmmm â?? somehow, some way, even as we have gotten worse and worse with the rise of the hated State, we have gotten better and better at appreciating our human rights.
More nonsense.
You are correct, as I stated above â?? but they must exist prior to the market. The question which you have no clue on is the basis of these pre-market Rights you swear exist â?? but you have not answered yet, and I suspect you cannot answer any time soon.
No, they have not â?? and another fiction from Dustin. In agricultural societies, power centers emerged to organize political power to, among other things, pay tributes (both religious and secular) and protect against rivals. The more property people began to accumulate property â?? recall that hunter-gatherers typically did not amass wealth because it was incompatible with their mobile lifestyle, but that changed when humans began to engage in agriculture â?? the more they began to consolidate certain kinds of power in Power Centers to serve important ends.
You have history exactly backwards.
That does not mean that history is on an inevitable path to consolidating all of societyâ??s power in one, big Power Center â?? far from it, but that is a separate issue â?? it only means that humans at an early stage began recognizing the need for some public power to secure their property and their lives.
So private schools â?? that ignore Anarchism (and Phrenology) all the same â?? are part of the same, giant conspiracy? Get a new tin foil hat.
See above, over and over â?? there is a functional State in your examples, and they decide things for their communities all the time.
According to looneytarian libertarians and Anarchists, when a democratic majority â?? even a tiny one â?? denies you your Rights of Liberty, it is an unjust usurpation of your rights. The size is irrelevant â?? a denial of rights is a denial of rights. You seem perfectly ok with frittering away your Rights of Liberty so long as a really, really small community votes to take them away compared to a large one â?? which means you are really an Extreme Localist, not any kind of libertarian that believes in Natural Rights.
Red herring â?? you are providing an alternative, not arguing whether the use of the force is justified if done by the government.
By your own definition, rules are justified as long as they have their basis in consent â?? see the Amish example, of which you have no problem. If a community/society consents to a statutory right to taxation in order to fund other government functions (that are also underpinned by consent), the taxation is justified.
This is using the standard you have defended, genius.
That is because we consented to government owning the monopoly of force, for obvious reasons. If we do not go this route, then force â?? which is still necessary in society, see the enforcement of contracts â?? is in the hands of private persons only, and we wind up, yet again, at the Law of Naked Force.
You sound like nothing more than a 13 year old mad at authority figures. Grow up.
So? If I have breached the other part of the contract, I sure as hell am not going to concede that the force being used against me is fair under the same contract â?? I would simply shoot back.
How ridiculous â?? why would a breaching party care about the fine print authorizing force to collect judgment? They already are unwilling to honor their end of the bargain.
In your bizarrely stupid world, after a party breaches, a third party Private Sheriff shows up at their door and say â??I am here to collect under the contract and you agreed that if you breached I could come take your stuffâ??, only for the breaching party to resign in defeat and say “you are right, the fine print says you can take my stuff, so go ahead â?? after all, it was in the contract I am already ignoring.”
Preposterous â?? like the rest of your arguments. Of course none of that would happen â?? the breaching party would defy the Private Sheriff as much as he defied the other parts of the agreement. Then the injured party is left to drag up a posse or eat his losses.
And donâ??t give me some Anarchist drivel that selfâ??interested types have no reason to breach deals with one another, so we should not worry our heads over it â?? even with legitimate enforcement mechanisms in place (i.e., courts and sheriffs), parties breach all the time. In your Anarchic world, breaching parties have even less fear of the consequences of the breach, especially if they have a great deal of money. After all, they can just buy their own private army to put your Private Sheriif in a pine box.
“But, but â?? I could hire a third party to collect the judgment!”. Hilarious.
It is almost as if you have zero concept of business, markets, and contracts. Contracts are only as good as the ability to enforce them â?? and in your precious Anarchic Utopia, you have no reliable enforcement mechanism to secure those rights, so no durable market economy.
Your Bush fetish is amusing and sad to behold, but of the viable candidates, Bush was far better than his opponents in terms of holding true to First Principles. Notice the qualifier: viable. Ron Paul â?? a crackpot clown that trafficked in some of the most base forms of awful politics and couldnâ??t lead a Girl Scout cookie drive â?? was never viable, not even any good.
Of course, in terms of your appeal to the Founders, there is not a one of them that advocated for a Night Watchman state â?? even Jefferson.
And, of course, the Night Watchman state is not the polar opposite of my politics, because the polar opposite of a Night Watchman state would be state-owned production, state-controlled information, state-controlled property - extreme socialism/communism, essentially. I am not a socialist or a communist, which should be obvious to anyone who has read anything I have written.
As usual, your wild swing and a miss is predicated on seeing the world as divided into two camps â?? Anarchists and Statists. I am neither. Just stupid.
I don’t have a rigid world view â?? but more importantly, I like views that differ from mine, so long as the defense of them are not sloppily argued, silly, and a waste of time. Sadly, for your sake, your ideology â?? as dumb and dreadful as Marxism and all of its promised earthly paradises â?? damns you on all three counts.
…an obvious lie to anyone who has read anything I have written, but I do not want to stand in the way of your teary-eyed tantrum.
As an Anarchist, you cannot believe in the legitimacy of any international law, so there is nothing for the US to break. You do not have a moral claim that the US has done anything wrong, because you have never articulated any Natural Rights, and the only rights you have (weakly) defended are Contractual Rights that protect free trading in the market.
If you want to point out hypocrisy by the lights of international law, be my guest â?? good luck finding any.
I havenâ??t avoided any argument â?? I voted for Bush twice, and have mixed opinions about his performance over his eight years. I liked Bushâ??s seriousness on national security, because, like your libertarian hero Jefferson, Bush recognized that the guarantees of civil liberties in the Constitution does not render it a suicide pact when national security is at stake:
“[a] strict observance of the written law is doubtless one of the high duties of a good citizen, but it is not the highest. The laws of necessity, of self-preservation, of saving our country when in danger, are of higher obligation. To lose our country by a scrupulous adherence to the written law, would be to lose the law itself, with life, liberty, property and all those who are enjoying them with us; thus absurdly sacrificing the ends to the means.”
I also liked his position on judges, but disliked his position on spending (both economic and political aspects of it).
All of which is to say that voting for Bush and being a classical liberal is not inconsistent, particularly given the alternative(s).
This is utter nonsense, but you knew that â?? I have been more than happy to criticize Bush when he was in office. I criticized him, among other things, for being a partyâ??building president after 9/11 rather than being a peopleâ??s president (primarily because of his approach to government spending). Help yourself to a search.
Because you have consistently argued from a standpoint that any person that believes in some level of government is a categorical Statist, thus setting up a straw man, and then you attack the straw man. There is nothing to dodge â?? you simply argue against what you want to argue against rather than the individual.
Not all government is evil, not all government is bad â?? as I said earlier, the answer to bad government is not, and never has been, no government. Such an argument does not make me a Statist, but I understand your need to insulate yourself in comfortable illusions.
Let us have a reckoning â?? I have argued that business is overregulated and against the domineering administrative state generally, I have argued against judicial activism, I have argued against international agreements that override sovereignty, I have argued for a rebirth of federalism, I have argued that the federal government oversteps its authority w/r/t the Interstate Commerce Clause, and I have said that I would not consider myself a member of the GOP until it changes its bigâ??government ways.
You are confused yet again â?? you confuse arguing in favor of some government is the equivalent to arguing for socialist government. It is not, and never has been the same. Learn up.
Give me a break. The answer you are looking for but wonâ??t say is Human Beings. Human Beings â?? whether acting under the power of government or their own private interest â?? are responsible for ruining your attempted paradise(s) (whatever they might be, you never said).
As I said earlier, you just sound more and more like a child nursing a grudge against authority. I simply cannot take you seriously after this paragraph.
Setting aside historical examples (which you never address, seeming to start somewhere in the 20th century), you do not account for the mafia, gangs, criminal enterprises generally, and even individuals not associated with any organization that want what you have and decide to take it.
I donâ??t know if it is winning or not, but you just highlighted your own enormous hole into your own theory. Call it what you like, but you have proven by your own hand that Human Beings are not compatible with your Utopian nonsense.
And I would be careful citing Lifticus for anything.
No, in fact, all the Founders warned of government getting out of control. Even Grandmaster Statist George Washington â?? he who put down upstart rebellions like the Giant Fascist he is â?? warned about government getting out of control.
No, you wanted to trot out your appeal to the Founders, only to be shown the door that you have nothing to appeal to. I know Jefferson would be a (moderate) libertarian by the standards of today â?? so what? He is not an anarchist, nor was a single Founding Father.
You would be wrong â?? Jefferson did not believe in minarchism. And whether or not we have the same version of Jeffersonâ??s public education is irrelevant to the point that Jefferson thought the state should be providing that service to the people, which refutes the notion that he wanted a Night Watchman version of the state.
You are just plain awful at this.
You were wrong then and you are wrong now, but I suspect you get used to it. I believe in limited government, federalism, separation of powers, private property rights, the right to keep and bear arms, American exceptionalism, and perhaps the most paramount belief if the Founding Fathers: that on either side of the Union lies the twin dangers of Tyranny and Anarchy, and we have to steer ourselves clear of both delusions.
I have the basic foundations of the free market just fine. You are no different than a Marxist â?? you engage in the silly reductionism that Human Beings are merely economic actors with no interest outside of gettingâ?? and spendinâ??. You think contracts magically enforce themselves and that Human Beings are noble savages corrupted only by institutions that get in the way of their desire to exchange goods and services.
It is hogwash at best to engage in such foolish abstractions â?? the Market is a human institution and cannot be evaluated otherwise.
The aspects have been addressed from the beginning â?? do not confuse your inability to provide a worthwhile response with a failure on my part to answer.
