[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Do governments have any obligations or rights? If so what are they and to who benefits from these obligations and/or rights?
Are there any acts that governments never have the right to do?
Where does government’s right to exist at the expense of someone else come from?[/quote]
I think I am going to call you Captain Somalia. [/quote]
This whole Somalia thing is nonsense.
They are held to an impossible standard.
Look at other governments in Sub Saharan Africa and that is their realistic alternative.
They are not doing worse than those.
Your whole idea that a developed society needs government is baseless, at best you can argue that a sufficiently developed host will attract parasites.[/quote]
What example do you have of a developed society, that has no governing body, that succeeds at any level? How would that even work, what would you use for money?
[quote]Neuromancer wrote:
Without them what is to stop a feudal warlord throwing you in a dungeon when you’re on a business/trading trip somewhere and you having no recourse or others willing to intervene for you?
[/quote]
Tell me, what exactly is the difference between a “feudal warlord” and a modern day warlord?[/quote]
Some semblance of accountability for a start. But nice try though.
I see they key questions remained unanswered…[/quote]
So the fact that a modern day warlord can kill me more efficiently doesn’t cross your mind?
There is no such thing as government accountability. One bad warlord gets replaced by an other and so on…nothing changes.
That aside, saying I have to rely on an embassy that should not exist in the first place proves what?
I am not bound to any obligations of someone else’s property other than to not trespass upon it.[/quote]
Well, then, you are bound by a private property boundary that you did not agree to by the nature of “trespassing”.
You can only “trespass” on property if someone else has a right to it that you don’t - how can you trespass on land designated by an invisible boundary line that you never agreed to?
[quote]Neuromancer wrote:
Without them what is to stop a feudal warlord throwing you in a dungeon when you’re on a business/trading trip somewhere and you having no recourse or others willing to intervene for you?
[/quote]
Tell me, what exactly is the difference between a “feudal warlord” and a modern day warlord?[/quote]
Some semblance of accountability for a start. But nice try though.
I see they key questions remained unanswered…[/quote]
So the fact that a modern day warlord can kill me more efficiently doesn’t cross your mind?
There is no such thing as government accountability. One bad warlord gets replaced by an other and so on…nothing changes.
That aside, saying I have to rely on an embassy that should not exist in the first place proves what?[/quote]
What does efficiency have to do with anything?
I’m still waiting for you to answer anything of substance head on and for the skirting around and obfuscation with meaningless questions and even more meaningless statements like “One bad warlord gets replaced by an other and so on…nothing changes.” to stop.
Where do these ‘rights’ you feel you have and are being trampled on emanate from?
Don’t get caught up in the example - for another example, let’s use an event where you run into my car, completely total my car and injure me.
Insurance would not solve this problem because no one is going to insure you for damages caused by someone else without an ability to go after reimbursement for the claims paid out caused by someone else’s actions. Insurers aren’t going to absorb the risk of those events without being able to offset those risks somehow, some way.
Imagine - an insurance company in the business of insuring you against the unexpected damage caused by someone else with no ability to be compensated for the loss of money to the insurance company. Sure - that business would last all of a day.
[/quote]
Some insurers will take a loss but actuaries figure out how to keep it profitable and they do.
Like I said - and a point you seem to not get - market forces would motivate people to have insurance because daily business would be too costly with out it.
If I owned a piece of road in my city no uninsured drivers would have access to them. Problem solved and no one else is forced to pay for anyone else’s free ride.
Some insurers will take a loss but actuaries figure out how to keep it profitable and they do.[/quote]
No, they don’t - that’s the entire point. You can’t even explain your own point - you don’t have a clue how the actuaries would “make money” from it. You might as well declare that unicorns exist.
No, you have it backwards - there wouldn’t be a supply for this kind of insurance because it doesn’t make economic sense to provide the insurance.
Irrelevant - if you hit me and cause me damage, it doesn’t matter if you have insurance, because I have no means to making you pay for the damage you caused. Everyone could be insured on your privately owned road, doesn’t matter - I don’t have a way to make you make me whole on the damages you caused.
I am not bound to any obligations of someone else’s property other than to not trespass upon it.[/quote]
Well, then, you are bound by a private property boundary that you did not agree to by the nature of “trespassing”.
You can only “trespass” on property if someone else has a right to it that you don’t - how can you trespass on land designated by an invisible boundary line that you never agreed to?[/quote]
I am not sure what kind of illogic you are arguing.
What does my agreement of someone else’s property have to do with anything?
Property is property.
A contract is a legal obligation for said property.
If I enter into contract with property owner I do so voluntarily and I am not forced into private property contracts.
Some insurers will take a loss but actuaries figure out how to keep it profitable and they do.[/quote]
No, they don’t - that’s the entire point. You can’t even explain your own point - you don’t have a clue how the actuaries would “make money” from it. You might as well declare that unicorns exist.
No, you have it backwards - there wouldn’t be a supply for this kind of insurance because it doesn’t make economic sense to provide the insurance.
Irrelevant - if you hit me and cause me damage, it doesn’t matter if you have insurance, because I have no means to making you pay for the damage you caused. Everyone could be insured on your privately owned road, doesn’t matter - I don’t have a way to make you make me whole on the damages you caused.
[/quote]
Insurance companies are about minimizing cost versus risk.
Anything can be insured that has calculable risk.
Just because some might be uninsured does not prevent you from protecting your property with insurance.
Just because some might be uninsured does not mean the insurance companies will not not be recompensed for their loss.
The first time you see signs warning fishermen about eating their catch, because of the potential for mercury poisoning, you realize that the free market can’t do everything. Worse yet, even when actors in the free market might be able to do something, they choose not to.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
The first time you see signs warning fishermen about eating their catch, because of the potential for mercury poisoning, you realize that the free market can’t do everything. Worse yet, even when actors in the free market might be able to do something, they choose not to. [/quote]
Except mercury poisoning is an overblown problem and it just serves government’s purposes by creating yet more red tape and bureaucracy.
The idea that people cannot be informed by free market media is naive at best and at worst shows you lack simple observational skills.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
The first time you see signs warning fishermen about eating their catch, because of the potential for mercury poisoning, you realize that the free market can’t do everything. Worse yet, even when actors in the free market might be able to do something, they choose not to. [/quote]
Except mercury poisoning is an overblown problem and it just serves government’s purposes by creating yet more red tape and bureaucracy.
The idea that people cannot be informed by free market media is naive at best and at worst shows you lack simple observational skills.[/quote]
I’m sorry, what does free market media accomplish? Would the media regulate mercury pollution? Sorry, the free market does produces consequences outside of the original individual to individual transaction.
I am not sure what kind of illogic you are arguing.
What does my agreement of someone else’s property have to do with anything?
Property is property.
A contract is a legal obligation for said property.
If I enter into contract with property owner I do so voluntarily and I am not forced into private property contracts.[/quote]
You insist on saying you can’t be bound by rules you did not voluntarily assent to be bound by. Private property boundaries are rules you, in fact, have not agreed to be bound by.
So, as a consistent anarchist, all private property boundaries that exist that you have not agreed to are not valid as enforceable boundaries, correct?
So, how could you “trespass” on land marked by boundaries you never agreed to recognize?
And don’t give me rambling, incoherent Orion-like responses - just answer the questions.
Insurance companies are about minimizing cost versus risk.
Anything can be insured that has calculable risk.[/quote]
Well, no, because though you might be able to calculate the risk, it may not make economic sense to provide insurance against that risk.
[quote]Just because some might be uninsured does not prevent you from protecting your property with insurance.
Just because some might be uninsured does not mean the insurance companies will not not be recompensed for their loss.[/quote]
This is incoherent babbling, just answer the question - why would an insurance company insure you against calamity caused by other drivers’ recklessness if that insurance company cannot go get recovery for claims paid that were caused by other driver?
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
This is incoherent babbling, just answer the question - why would an insurance company insure you against calamity caused by other drivers’ recklessness if that insurance company cannot go get recovery for claims paid that were caused by other driver?[/quote]
This is all you need to put down the childish drivel that is anarchism. Markets don’t work without a club-wielding overseer.