NationStates Jolt Archive

I'm well aware that tax is robbery.

But some tax is necessary.

Ideally the military budget should be cut significantly. I'm talking 50-75%. But a military IS needed for national defense. It's one of the reasons we have a government.

A government claims a monopoly on physical force.

Side note- You've still never effectively explained why you feel tax is robbery, nor that property rights are inviolable.

But again, if tax is nessecary then clearly we could tax to larger degrees without it being in any qualitative way worse. If your nation is ready to accept taxing, then the 'tax is robbery' bit is moot anyways. In this case, it should be up to the citizens of the nation to decide what should be taxed, and what form the tax will take.

Government can run all of its essential activities (law & order, some defense, education, maybe a bit of emergency relief etc.) on a 2.5% flat tax rate in the United States. I can prove it mathematically.

I mean this very kindly. But I have studied mathematics, and if you can prove "mathematically" what the legitimate (or even essential) activities of government are, I would be most interesting in seeing the proof. I can prove mathematically that the square root of two is irrational, but I'd be amazed if anyone can prove mathematically what government should and should not do. Another point to consider is that ALL mathematical proofs rest upon an axiomatic base--meaning that some premises have to be accepted without proof.

Nonetheless, I really am interested in seeing the proof for your assertion, if one exists.

....

We both know what I meant.

I can show mathematically that we can maintain:
-A standing army (not as big as the current one granted)
-A good education system (through tax credits/private schools)
-A police and legal system
-Emergency disaster relief
-Infrastructure
-It's own day-to-day running expenses (recall that these will be smaller if government is scaled down)

With a 2.5% flat tax rate.

Just a minute. How big (and expensive) does this standing army have to be? Offhand, I'd say that it depends on how much of a military threat a country faces. England in 1940 probably couldn't have gotten by with a 2.5% flat tax rate. By the same token, "emergency disaster relief" is open-ended--they don't call those things "acts of God" for nothing. The cost of a police and legal system would obviously depend on the amount of crime and number of lawsuits--things that the government can't perfectly control. Even if I concede the point that a "good education system" can be maintained solely by private schools (which I don't in fact believe), wouldn't the effect of tax credits be less if taxes were as low as you suggest? I could go on. I agree with you that our taxes could be a lot less if government would stop pursuing pointless crusades like the "war on drugs" and giving away tens of billions every year to other countries. But calculating the cost of government (even given your assumptions about what government ought to do) is not an exact science.

I'm well aware that tax is robbery.

But some tax is necessary.



Therefore, ROBBERY IS NECESSARY!

TGM IS A ROBBER!

Also, have you ever considered looking in the dictionary to find out what words mean before you use them?

robbery: The act or an instance of unlawfully taking the property of another by the use of violence or intimidation.

It says "UNLAWFULLY". Taxation is LAWFUL, so it can't be robbery.

The need for food did create hunting, fishing and argriculture techniques, etc. And it is capitalism that has taken the production ability of the working class and used it to build the mansions of the rich.
Only because those employees agreed to it.


The same argument can be made that taxes are legitimate, because you agreed to pay taxes by living and working in a country which charges you tax.

Non sequitur.

I never signed any contract stating that I would pay taxes and they would provide services. Unless and until they give me such a contract to sign, they can just eat a dick.

If you didn't want to pay the tax, you should have left the country and go and live in one of the many countries which doesn't charge tax.

Ah....the brainwashed statist speaks.

And people wonder why I'm an anarchist.

The need for food did create hunting, fishing and argriculture techniques, etc. And it is capitalism that has taken the production ability of the working class and used it to build the mansions of the rich.
Only because those employees agreed to it.


The same argument can be made that taxes are legitimate, because you agreed to pay taxes by living and working in a country which charges you tax. If you didn't want to pay the tax, you should have left the country and go and live in one of the many countries which doesn't charge tax.

No becuase if you don't pay tax you have to leave teh country... which means that you are being FORCED to abandon property that you legitimately own. No such constraint applies to labor.

Yes because if you don't want a company taking a cut of your production, you have to leave the company... which means that you are being FORCED to abandon a job which is legitimately yours.

Utterly false analogy. You made an agreement with your employer. You made no such agreement with the government. It was FOISTED upon you. Big difference.

Also, you might like to consider that without the protection of the country's laws, legal system, and police force, you don't HAVE any "legitimate property". I own a piece of land. How do I know I own a piece of land? Because I paid for it. What did I pay for it WITH? With MONEY. MONEY THAT THE GOVERNMENT PRINTED. How do I prove that I own the land? I have a "title". Where did the title come from? FROM THE GOVERNMENT!

Property doesn't require a government, though. Would you like me to cite historical cases?

Without a government to protect your "property rights", then whoever has the most force can simply take your property at their whim. How do governments pay for the laws, legal system, courts, and police to protect your property? THROUGH TAXATION.

Who protects us from the government?

I never signed any contract stating that I would pay taxes and they would provide services. Unless and until they give me such a contract to sign, they can just eat a dick.


When was the first time you earned some money and paid some tax? How old were you? How much did you earn, and how much tax did you pay?

If you really believe that there is no contract between you and the state, why don't you take them to court and force them to give all your money back, Big Man? Come on, you think you've got all the unbeatable arguments! Put up or shut up! Take the government to court and DEMAND that they give back all the tax you've ever paid, because you never agreed to pay it.

Or do you just like to sit around on chatboards and PRETEND like you're all so big and tough and aren't afraid of the Big Bad Government, but if it got down to actually trying to recover the stuff you say they've illegitimately taken off you, you run and hide like a scared rabbit?

If your arguments are so good, TAKE THEM TO COURT AND GET YOUR MONEY BACK. You can use all those Latin expressions you enjoy so much! I hear that judges like that Latiny talk! If you are just full of wind, and too afraid to do anything, then stop pretending like you're so tough, because it's all just an act.


If you didn't want to pay the tax, you should have left the country and go and live in one of the many countries which doesn't charge tax.

Ah....the brainwashed statist speaks.

And people wonder why I'm an anarchist.

You aren't an "anarchist", you're a capitalist. I'm not a "brainwashed statist", I'm stating the position like it really is. If your "pure capitalism" ideals are so great, how come no group of "pure capitalists" have set up their own tax-free country? Hmmmm? If what you're blathering on about is so brilliant, why don't you go and do it? Why sit around a Chat BBS on a GAME on the Internet blabbing about it?

Why is there no "pure capitalist" country anywhere in the world which doesn't charge any tax that you can move to? If what you're saying is so undeniably RIGHT, then WHY IS NOBODY DOING IT? If you believe the government is wrong for taxing you, GO AND GET THAT MONEY BACK OFF THEM!

DON'T JUST SIT THERE! DO IT! You know you WANT to.

All this comes back to an important question- do we have an abosulte, fundmental entitlement to property? I don't believe so, for theoretical as well as anthropological reasons... if anyone is interested in my particular view, I'll start a thread tomorrow, but tonight I'm going to ye olde bar, to spend my ill-gotten gains on libations.

The same argument can be made that taxes are legitimate, because you agreed to pay taxes by living and working in a country which charges you tax.

Non sequitur.

I never signed any contract stating that I would pay taxes and they would provide services. Unless and until they give me such a contract to sign, they can just eat a dick.


If your of legal age and you remain in a country that charges taxes, and especially if you make uses of their services then you have entered a social contract, wether you like it or not.

As a side not, your lack of verbal acumen is astounding.

I'm well aware that tax is robbery.

But some tax is necessary.



Therefore, ROBBERY IS NECESSARY!

TGM IS A ROBBER!

Also, have you ever considered looking in the dictionary to find out what words mean before you use them?

robbery: The act or an instance of unlawfully taking the property of another by the use of violence or intimidation.

It says "UNLAWFULLY". Taxation is LAWFUL, so it can't be robbery.

Taxation is lawful robbery. So what? It's still robbery. ALL Governments rob. YOu can't prevent this. What you CAN do is ROB AS LITTLE AS POSSIBLE.

And Usoria, I'm talkng about the USA TODAY not England in 1940.

We can cut our military budget by 50-67% and still be funding it double or more what hte number 2 country is funding its military.

When was the first time you earned some money and paid some tax? How old were you? How much did you earn, and how much tax did you pay?

If you really believe that there is no contract between you and the state, why don't you take them to court and force them to give all your money back, Big Man? Come on, you think you've got all the unbeatable arguments! Put up or shut up! Take the government to court and DEMAND that they give back all the tax you've ever paid, because you never agreed to pay it.

Or do you just like to sit around on chatboards and PRETEND like you're all so big and tough and aren't afraid of the Big Bad Government, but if it got down to actually trying to recover the stuff you say they've illegitimately taken off you, you run and hide like a scared rabbit?

If your arguments are so good, TAKE THEM TO COURT AND GET YOUR MONEY BACK. You can use all those Latin expressions you enjoy so much! I hear that judges like that Latiny talk! If you are just full of wind, and too afraid to do anything, then stop pretending like you're so tough, because it's all just an act.

A government claims a monopoly on PHYSICAL FORCE.

Physical force tends to beat legitimate arguments in a one-on-one fight. A guy with an AK-47 determined to kill you probably won't be won over by Latinate phrases. Think of government as a whole GANG of guys with weapons that are FAR superior to AK-47s. It acts even less rationality.

Also the mere fact that you are advocating fear of the government shows that you are clearly a statist. Whether you are brainwashed or just stupid, that is yet to be seen.

The closest country to pure capitalism is Hong Kong, which has a tremendosuly high quality of life in that area of hte world. PURE capitalism is the best and most desirable system in theory, but like heaven, it cannot be achieved. However the more capitalist a society is the better MORE OR LESS. Capitalism functions most effectively in a republican society with a relatively high per capita income.

I'm not an anarchist. I'm a "Libertarian." That's someone who still believes the principles of liberty. Many capitalists fall into this category, though some lean more towards the conservative side.

I'm not an anarchist. I'm a "Libertarian." That's someone who still believes the principles of liberty. Many capitalists fall into this category, though some lean more towards the conservative side.

Libertarians want everything for free. They don't want to pay taxes, but want all the government to repair the roads, provide goods schools, etc.

I'm not an anarchist. I'm a "Libertarian." That's someone who still believes the principles of liberty. Many capitalists fall into this category, though some lean more towards the conservative side.

Libertarians want everything for free. They don't want to pay taxes, but want all the government to repair the roads, provide goods schools, etc.

No those are liberals.

We DONT want government services.

We DONT want the governemnt to provide schools at all. We want a tax credit system and private education.

I'm not an anarchist. I'm a "Libertarian." That's someone who still believes the principles of liberty. Many capitalists fall into this category, though some lean more towards the conservative side.

Libertarians want everything for free. They don't want to pay taxes, but want all the government to repair the roads, provide goods schools, etc.

No those are liberals.

We DONT want government services.

We DONT want the governemnt to provide schools at all. We want a tax credit system and private education.

What about poor children that can't afford private education?

Lord Evif, Goobergunchian UN Ambassador
DU Regional Delegate

[ooc: posting via this puppet :evil:]

The closest country to pure capitalism is Hong Kong, which has a tremendosuly high quality of life in that area of hte world. PURE capitalism is the best and most desirable system in theory, but like heaven, it cannot be achieved. However the more capitalist a society is the better MORE OR LESS. Capitalism functions most effectively in a republican society with a relatively high per capita income.

I'm not an anarchist. I'm a "Libertarian." That's someone who still believes the principles of liberty. Many capitalists fall into this category, though some lean more towards the conservative side.

How would you explain then that the Scadinavian Social Democracies have had consistently higher standards of living thatn anyone else for decades, despite the high level of taxation? Clearly this is at oods with the idea that capitalism (especially free-market) is the only/best way to run a developed government.

I'm not an anarchist. I'm a "Libertarian." That's someone who still believes the principles of liberty. Many capitalists fall into this category, though some lean more towards the conservative side.

Libertarians want everything for free. They don't want to pay taxes, but want all the government to repair the roads, provide goods schools, etc.

No those are liberals.

We DONT want government services.

We DONT want the governemnt to provide schools at all. We want a tax credit system and private education.

What about poor children that can't afford private education?

Lord Evif, Goobergunchian UN Ambassador
DU Regional Delegate

[ooc: posting via this puppet :evil:]

....

They get in free. That's what tax credits do.

The closest country to pure capitalism is Hong Kong, which has a tremendosuly high quality of life in that area of hte world. PURE capitalism is the best and most desirable system in theory, but like heaven, it cannot be achieved. However the more capitalist a society is the better MORE OR LESS. Capitalism functions most effectively in a republican society with a relatively high per capita income.

I'm not an anarchist. I'm a "Libertarian." That's someone who still believes the principles of liberty. Many capitalists fall into this category, though some lean more towards the conservative side.

How would you explain then that the Scadinavian Social Democracies have had consistently higher standards of living thatn anyone else for decades, despite the high level of taxation? Clearly this is at oods with the idea that capitalism (especially free-market) is the only/best way to run a developed government.

First of all how are you measuring quality of life?

Second of all Norway and Sweden combined have 20 million people. This is less than Canada. Plus they are rich. That gives them a high quality of life.

Switzerland, which is very capitalist and also has a small population has a very high quality of life too... for that reason.

In fact the Per Capita Income in Switzerland is almost double that of Sweden.

Sweden's GDP was growing at 5.7% yearly until they adopted socialism in 1970. If that growth continued they would currently be the richest per-capita country in the world with double the per capita GDP of the United States. At 9 million people, they would be a world economic power.

I'm not an anarchist. I'm a "Libertarian." That's someone who still believes the principles of liberty. Many capitalists fall into this category, though some lean more towards the conservative side.

Libertarians want everything for free. They don't want to pay taxes, but want all the government to repair the roads, provide goods schools, etc.

No those are liberals.

We DONT want government services.

We DONT want the governemnt to provide schools at all. We want a tax credit system and private education.

What about poor children that can't afford private education?

Lord Evif, Goobergunchian UN Ambassador
DU Regional Delegate

....

They get in free. That's what tax credits do.

I thought you didn't believe in taxes.

Lord Evif, Goobergunchian UN Ambassador
DU Regional Delegate

[ooc: posting via this puppet :evil:]

I thought you didn't believe in taxes.

Lord Evif, Goobergunchian UN Ambassador
DU Regional Delegate

[ooc: posting via this puppet :evil:]

I don't. They are robbery.

But some robbery is necessary to preserve the nation.

It's a compromise between justice (pure capitalism) and reality (whatever the hell works at the time, usually close to pure capitalism).

ALL governments rob. The difference lies in the DEGREE of robbery.

I thought you didn't believe in taxes.

Lord Evif, Goobergunchian UN Ambassador
DU Regional Delegate

[ooc: posting via this puppet :evil:]

I don't. They are robbery.

But some robbery is necessary to preserve the nation.

It's a compromise between justice (pure capitalism) and reality (whatever the hell works at the time, usually close to pure capitalism).

ALL governments rob. The difference lies in the DEGREE of robbery.

If that's the case, why is it legitimate for government to "steal" for some purposes, but not for others. Why isn't preventing epidemics of infectious diseases by means of public healthcare as much a matter of public necessity as preventing foreign invasion by means of military spending.

There has been enough legislation already.

Vote against this, AND every other proposal that comes along.

Just say "No".

One other thing. The Swiss Constitution contains the following provisions:

Article 8, Section 3: “Men and women have equal rights. The law provides for legal and factual equality, particularly in the family, during education, and at the workplace. Men and women have the right to equal pay for work of equal value.”

Article 8, Section 4: “The law provides for measures to eliminate disadvantages of disabled people.”

Article 12, Section 1: “Whoever is in distress without the ability to take care of him- or herself has the right to help and assistance and to the means indispensable for a life led in human dignity.”

Article 19, Section 1: “The right to sufficient and free primary education is guaranteed.”

If Switzerland is to be brought into court, it should be as a witness AGAINST the "Bill of No Rights".

One other thing. The Swiss Constitution contains the following provisions:

Article 8, Section 3: “Men and women have equal rights. The law provides for legal and factual equality, particularly in the family, during education, and at the workplace. Men and women have the right to equal pay for work of equal value.”

Article 8, Section 4: “The law provides for measures to eliminate disadvantages of disabled people.”

Article 12, Section 1: “Whoever is in distress without the ability to take care of him- or herself has the right to help and assistance and to the means indispensable for a life led in human dignity.”

Article 19, Section 1: “The right to sufficient and free primary education is guaranteed.”

If Switzerland is to be brought into court, it should be as a witness AGAINST the "Bill of No Rights".

WHERE does the bill of no rights support unequal rights between men and women?

WHERE does the bill of no rights attack the disabled?

WHERE does the bill of no rights say anything about education?

One other thing. The Swiss Constitution contains the following provisions:

Article 8, Section 3: “Men and women have equal rights. The law provides for legal and factual equality, particularly in the family, during education, and at the workplace. Men and women have the right to equal pay for work of equal value.”

Article 8, Section 4: “The law provides for measures to eliminate disadvantages of disabled people.”

Article 12, Section 1: “Whoever is in distress without the ability to take care of him- or herself has the right to help and assistance and to the means indispensable for a life led in human dignity.”

Article 19, Section 1: “The right to sufficient and free primary education is guaranteed.”

If Switzerland is to be brought into court, it should be as a witness AGAINST the "Bill of No Rights".

WHERE does the bill of no rights support unequal rights between men and women?

WHERE does the bill of no rights attack the disabled?

WHERE does the bill of no rights say anything about education?

The "Bill of No Rights" says "You don't have the right to a job..." This would logically rule out the government preventing people from being denied employment--or equal pay for equal work--because of sex or disability.

The "Bill of No Rights" says "You do not have the right to the possessions of others...", and you have taken some pains to point out that taxation involves the government confiscating the possessions of others. How then is the "right to sufficient and free primary education" to be funded except by means of taxation? Indeed, public education in Switzerland IS so funded.

The "Bill of No Rights" says "You don't have the right to a job..." This would logically rule out the government preventing people from being denied employment--or equal pay for equal work--because of sex or disability.

Private property.

The "Bill of No Rights" says "You do not have the right to the possessions of others...", and you have taken some pains to point out that taxation involves the government confiscating the possessions of others. How then is the "right to sufficient and free primary education" to be funded except by means of taxation? Indeed, public education in Switzerland IS so funded.

Sales tax, fines levied against criminals, lawsuits, etc.

Our position stands. You have not explained how government can prevent private businesses from discriminating on the basis of sex or disability without, in some way, infringing on the "absolute" right of private property.

Concerning your second point--isn't the Sales Tax a form of taxation? And if the Swiss felt that the other means you suggest were sufficient, why do they rely on taxation to fund their public schools?

I notice that you don't even address the provision in the Swiss constitution that guarantees to people in distress the "RIGHT" to "help and assistance and to the means indispensable for a life led in human dignity". That provision stands in such obvious contradiction to the "Bill of No Rights" as to need no explanation whatever.

Private businesses have hte RIGHT to discriminate based on WHATEVER THE HELL THEY WANT.

Of course if they DO discriminate against women or minorities, that wouldn't be good for business, since other companies would be able to hire more qualified people.

It's called the "freedom of association".

"Equal opportunity" laws are evil and they are only the first step on a slippery slope to a throughouly racist society where the state TELLS you who you can or cannot befriend and who you can or cannot talk to based on ... race, which is a biological fantasy in the first place.

Switzerland also values national sovereignity a great deal. The BoNR was just an attempt at restoring sovereignity.

When was the first time you earned some money and paid some tax? How old were you? How much did you earn, and how much tax did you pay?

If you really believe that there is no contract between you and the state, why don't you take them to court and force them to give all your money back, Big Man? Come on, you think you've got all the unbeatable arguments! Put up or shut up! Take the government to court and DEMAND that they give back all the tax you've ever paid, because you never agreed to pay it.

Or do you just like to sit around on chatboards and PRETEND like you're all so big and tough and aren't afraid of the Big Bad Government, but if it got down to actually trying to recover the stuff you say they've illegitimately taken off you, you run and hide like a scared rabbit?

If your arguments are so good, TAKE THEM TO COURT AND GET YOUR MONEY BACK. You can use all those Latin expressions you enjoy so much! I hear that judges like that Latiny talk! If you are just full of wind, and too afraid to do anything, then stop pretending like you're so tough, because it's all just an act.

A government claims a monopoly on PHYSICAL FORCE.

Physical force tends to beat legitimate arguments in a one-on-one fight. A guy with an AK-47 determined to kill you probably won't be won over by Latinate phrases. Think of government as a whole GANG of guys with weapons that are FAR superior to AK-47s. It acts even less rationality.


Ummm, HELLO!!! I suggested that BAAWA take the government to COURT if he thinks his arguments are so strong. Do you think that if you take the government to the US Supreme Court, they drag you out the back and shoot you? Try to get a grip, d00d.


Also the mere fact that you are advocating fear of the government shows that you are clearly a statist. Whether you are brainwashed or just stupid, that is yet to be seen.


I guess that's the end of your "I NEVER INSULT ANYBODY" policy, huh? PLONK!


I'm not an anarchist. I'm a "Libertarian." That's someone who still believes the principles of liberty. Many capitalists fall into this category, though some lean more towards the conservative side.

Ohhh, you're a LIBRARIAN. That explains EVERYTHING.

The same argument can be made that taxes are legitimate, because you agreed to pay taxes by living and working in a country which charges you tax.

Non sequitur.

I never signed any contract stating that I would pay taxes and they would provide services. Unless and until they give me such a contract to sign, they can just eat a dick.


If your of legal age and you remain in a country that charges taxes, and especially if you make uses of their services then you have entered a social contract, wether you like it or not.

Prove it, especially since in many cases those services are FOISTED upon me.

Go on. Prove it.

I will wait.

First, though, you should check out http://www.daviddfriedman.com/Libertarian/response_to_huben.html

I never signed any contract stating that I would pay taxes and they would provide services. Unless and until they give me such a contract to sign, they can just eat a dick.


When was the first time you earned some money and paid some tax? How old were you? How much did you earn, and how much tax did you pay?

Nice red herring.

If you really believe that there is no contract between you and the state, why don't you take them to court and force them to give all your money back, Big Man?

Probably because the government owns the courts, and would simply follow what their master says.

I do have news for you, little statist: there is no such thing as a legitimate government unless ALL have consented and consent all the time. Never has happened. Never will happen.

Y'see, governments are just coercive monopolies based on the use of force to keep themselves in power. Nothing more.

As for my "Latin expressions"--maybe you should educate yourself.


If you didn't want to pay the tax, you should have left the country and go and live in one of the many countries which doesn't charge tax.

Ah....the brainwashed statist speaks.

And people wonder why I'm an anarchist.

You aren't an "anarchist", you're a capitalist.

I can't be both? Really? How odd that I am, then.

http://www.anti-state.com

I'm not a "brainwashed statist", I'm stating the position like it really is.

You're stating it as your statist masters have taught you. If they are not around, chaos reigns, right?

I never signed any contract stating that I would pay taxes and they would provide services. Unless and until they give me such a contract to sign, they can just eat a dick.


When was the first time you earned some money and paid some tax? How old were you? How much did you earn, and how much tax did you pay?

Nice red herring.

Wuh? It was just a question, not some kind of fish! I wanted to know how much money the government has "stolen" off you through taxation. Like is it $10? $100? $1000? Or is it ONE! MILLION! DOLLARS! How much money are we talking about here?


If you really believe that there is no contract between you and the state, why don't you take them to court and force them to give all your money back, Big Man?

Probably because the government owns the courts, and would simply follow what their master says.

I do have news for you, little statist: there is no such thing as a legitimate government unless ALL have consented and consent all the time. Never has happened. Never will happen.

Y'see, governments are just coercive monopolies based on the use of force to keep themselves in power. Nothing more.


Well why didn't you answer my OTHER question then? If your ideas are so brilliant and so obviously right and will make society so much more efficient, why don't you go and set up your own country somewhere, and implement them? After a few years when you are making SQUILLIONS through not having a government stopping you from doing so, everybody will surely sit up and take notice, won't they? If what you're saying is so magnificently correct, why is nobody DOING it? Why is it just a theory being blurted around a CHAT BOARD? At least buy a ship and float around in international waters, totally free of all government influence. If it works as well as you seem to believe, the gigantic profits you make should rapidly give you enough capital to go and buy out some bankrupt Pacific island, and then you can really go for it! Why isn't ANYBODY doing it?




As for my "Latin expressions"--maybe you should educate yourself.


Maybe I already did.

I never signed any contract stating that I would pay taxes and they would provide services. Unless and until they give me such a contract to sign, they can just eat a dick.


When was the first time you earned some money and paid some tax? How old were you? How much did you earn, and how much tax did you pay?

Nice red herring.

Wuh? It was just a question, not some kind of fish!

*sigh*

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/red-herring.html

Fallacy: Red Herring

Also Known as: Smoke Screen, Wild Goose Chase.
Description of Red Herring

A Red Herring is a fallacy in which an irrelevant topic is presented in order to divert attention from the original issue. The basic idea is to "win" an argument by leading attention away from the argument and to another topic. This sort of "reasoning" has the following form:

Topic A is under discussion.
Topic B is introduced under the guise of being relevant to topic A (when topic B is actually not relevant to topic A).
Topic A is abandoned.

This sort of "reasoning" is fallacious because merely changing the topic of discussion hardly counts as an argument against a claim.
Examples of Red Herring

"We admit that this measure is popular. But we also urge you to note that there are so many bond issues on this ballot that the whole thing is getting ridiculous."

"Argument" for a tax cut:

"You know, I've begun to think that there is some merit in the Republican's tax cut plan. I suggest that you come up with something like it, because If we Democrats are going to survive as a party, we have got to show that we are as tough-minded as the Republicans, since that is what the public wants."

"Argument" for making grad school requirements stricter:

"I think there is great merit in making the requirements stricter for the graduate students. I recommend that you support it, too. After all, we are in a budget crisis and we do not want our salaries affected."

I wanted to know how much money the government has "stolen" off you through taxation. Like is it $10? $100? $1000? Or is it ONE! MILLION! DOLLARS! How much money are we talking about here?

How much is irrelevant.


If you really believe that there is no contract between you and the state, why don't you take them to court and force them to give all your money back, Big Man?

Probably because the government owns the courts, and would simply follow what their master says.

I do have news for you, little statist: there is no such thing as a legitimate government unless ALL have consented and consent all the time. Never has happened. Never will happen.

Y'see, governments are just coercive monopolies based on the use of force to keep themselves in power. Nothing more.


Well why didn't you answer my OTHER question then?

Because they all stemmed from your crap, which I dealt with above.

As for your childish "if you're so right, why isn't everyone doing it" crap...never underestimate the power of self-delusion. There are still people out there who think that humans never landed on the moon, that the earth is flat, and that the earth is 6,000 years old.

Is that sufficiently metaphored for you?


As for my "Latin expressions"--maybe you should educate yourself.


Maybe I already did.

Then you wouldn't have complained about it.

The closest country to pure capitalism is Hong Kong, which has a tremendosuly high quality of life in that area of the world.

That's one for Ripley. Hong Kong is part of the "Peoples Republic of China"; and the "Peoples Republic of China" is a COMMUNIST country.

The closest country to pure capitalism is Hong Kong, which has a tremendosuly high quality of life in that area of the world.

That's one for Ripley. Hong Kong is part of the "Peoples Republic of China"; and the "Peoples Republic of China" is a COMMUNIST country.

And when did Hong Kong become part of the PROC?

1997.

Who had it before then?

The UK.

What did the UK do that the PROC is still allowing?

Have a market economy for Hong Kong.

I never signed any contract stating that I would pay taxes and they would provide services. Unless and until they give me such a contract to sign, they can just eat a dick.


THat's a ridiculous sentiment. Clearly our government would grind to a halt if everytime a law was to be passed or a desicion made we indivdually gathered consent from each and every person. I gather we're discussing tax and consent in a liberal democracy, specifically the US. Whether you believe consent theory is valid or not, the US constitution and the concepts and institutions outlined within, are directly 'borrowed' from J. Locke's 'Second Treatise of governement' ('Life liberty and happiness is actually a direct quote from that work.). By examining 'the Second Treatise', we can gather a greater understanding of the prinicples and philosophies which have essentially constructed your society.

Locke: Consent and government:

For if the consent of the majority shall not, in reason, be recieved as the act of the whole, and conclude every individual; nothing but the consent of every individual can make anything to be the act of the whole: but such consent is next to imposssible ever to be had, if we consider the infirmiteis of health, and the avocations of buisness, which in a number, though much less than that of a common-wealth, will necessarily keep many away from the public assmebly. To which if we add the variety of opinions, and contrariety of interests, which unavoidably happen in all collections of men, the coming into such terms would be only like Cato's coming into the theatre, only to go out again. Such a consitituion would make the mighty Leviathan of a shorter dureation, than the feeblest creatures, and not let it outlast the day it was born in: which cannot be supposed, till we can think, that rational creatures should desire and constitute societies only to be dissolved: for where the majority cannot conclude the rest, there they cannot act as one body, and consequently be immediately dissolved again.

Here Locke explains why obtaining consent for every issue is clearly impossible: he is also explaining why majority desicion making must be used instead of consensus. If we don't accept these priniciples, no desicions will be made, the executive and legislative bodies will be unable to function, and a return to the state of nature is inevitable. He is indicating the nessecity of a representative government.


...thus the commonwealth comes by a power to set down what punishment shall belong to the several transgressions which they think worthy of it, committed amongst the members of that society, (which is the power of making laws) as well as it has the power to punish any injury done unto any of its members of that society, as far as is possible. But though every man who has entered into civil society, and is become a member of any commonwealth, has thereby quitted his power to punish offences, against the law of nature, in prosecution of his own private judgement, yet with the judgement of offences, which he has given up to the legislative in all cases, where he can appeal to the magistrate, he has given a right to the common-wealth to employ his force, for the execution of the judgements of the common-wealth, whenever he shall be called to it; which indeed are his own judgements, they being made by himself, or his representative.

Locke is expressing several important ideas- he is explaining that while individuals within the common-wealth have lost their right to punish others for transgressions, the commonwealth takes the place as legislative and executive body, setting the grounds for punishment and transgressions: i.e. making laws. Each individual loses their ability to decide for themselves what the law will be, he is still making desicions by way of his representative- all the desicions made by the government are made with his own input via this representative.

According to the social contract theories the US constitution is based on, you do not have to give express for a law in order for it to bind you: this is clearly an absurd idea, especially in a nation of over 200 million. Morever, you are not being FORCED to pay taxes, since by participating in government, you are consenting to it's desicions, and those desicions are effectively your own.

You may not agree with these ideas, but since the legislative system in your society is based on them, it seems ridiculous to propagate rhetorhic with little or no common ground with YOUR OWN societies value judgements.

The closest country to pure capitalism is Hong Kong, which has a tremendosuly high quality of life in that area of the world.

That's one for Ripley. Hong Kong is part of the "Peoples Republic of China"; and the "Peoples Republic of China" is a COMMUNIST country.

Hong Kong was reunified with China under the "one country, two systems" principle.

The city government of Hong Kong is still basically sovereign from the rest of China.

China runs a very different economic system between its cities and the countryside. Shanghai is run on capitalist principles, Szechwan and Inner Mongolia aren't because they lack the infrastructure that Shanghai has.

The closest country to pure capitalism is Hong Kong, which has a tremendosuly high quality of life in that area of the world.

That's one for Ripley. Hong Kong is part of the "Peoples Republic of China"; and the "Peoples Republic of China" is a COMMUNIST country.

And when did Hong Kong become part of the PROC?

1997.

Who had it before then?

The UK.

What did the UK do that the PROC is still allowing?

Have a market economy for Hong Kong.

Yeah but the statement was that Hong Kong is the closest to pure capitalism. The state owns all the land, half the population gets rent subsidy, and they have a really great state healthcare system.

But yes, the Hong Kong government doesn't really "control" its economy all that much. They leave that to Alan Greenspan, basically, since the Hong Kong Dollar is essentially the American Dollar Times A Constant.

Yeah but the statement was that Hong Kong is the closest to pure capitalism. The state owns all the land, half the population gets rent subsidy, and they have a really great state healthcare system.

But yes, the Hong Kong government doesn't really "control" its economy all that much. They leave that to Alan Greenspan, basically, since the Hong Kong Dollar is essentially the American Dollar Times A Constant.

The reason the state owns most of the land in Hong Kong is because THE ENTIRE PLACE IS A CITY. The VALUE of land in Hong Kong is THE HIGHEST IN THE WORLD. Nobody can afford it, so nobody buys it. They can if they want to though.

The rent subsidy thing ended decades back after it failed miserably.

Their healthcare is subsidized but it's still privately-run.

I never signed any contract stating that I would pay taxes and they would provide services. Unless and until they give me such a contract to sign, they can just eat a dick.


THat's a ridiculous sentiment.

No, that's the proper Contractarian and Lockean Consent Theory sentiment.

Do tell me that you know what those positions are, and that I'm not wasting my time talking to a simpleton who hasn't done any research into political philosophy.

Clearly our government would grind to a halt if everytime a law was to be passed or a desicion made we indivdually gathered consent from each and every person.

Good. We don't need a government in the first place.

I gather we're discussing tax and consent in a liberal democracy, specifically the US. Whether you believe consent theory is valid or not, the US constitution and the concepts and institutions outlined within, are directly 'borrowed' from J. Locke's 'Second Treatise of governement' ('Life liberty and happiness is actually a direct quote from that work.). By examining 'the Second Treatise', we can gather a greater understanding of the prinicples and philosophies which have essentially constructed your society.

Yes. Anything less than full consent is a violation of someone's rights.

I do not see any metaphysical or epistemic reason why the majority should have the right to rule over the minority. None whatsoever. Locke didn't even fully appreciate his consent theory ideas. He kept with the idea of majority rule. But from whence comes this right? No one has ever explained it.

[snip]

According to the social contract theories the US constitution is based on, you do not have to give express for a law in order for it to bind you:

Actually, it is. Jefferson, in the DoI, took Locke for what it really was: total consent. Hobbesian contractarianism--->government fills in the rest.

Morever, you are not being FORCED to pay taxes,

Either I pay them or I go to jail/have my property seized. That's being FORCED, no matter how you slice it.

since by participating in government, you are consenting to it's desicions, and those desicions are effectively your own.

So because a woman is having sex--with the man who is raping her, she is consenting to the sex and the man's desire to rape her is ok?

That is the upshot of what you said, just in different words. I don't think you'd buy that line in a court, would you?

So why'd you try it here?

Next time, you'd better have something other than a complete non sequitur.

You may not agree with these ideas, but since the legislative system in your society is based on them, it seems ridiculous to propagate rhetorhic with little or no common ground with YOUR OWN societies value judgements.

Oh sheesh. So I have to sit down, shut up, and like it? You can take that noise and shove it up your ass.

"So because a woman is having sex--with the man who is raping her, she is consenting to the sex and the man's desire to rape her is ok? "
No but legally it is her child if she gets pregnant.
No, she is not conseting if it is rape since rape is unconsentual.
"We don't need a government in the first place. "
Any nation you go to has a Govenment, you stayed in America for some reason or other...
If you moved to jungle in south America or Africa you'd have no Government or moved to Iraq,...but that isn't best place either.
I'm sorry, unless you can legally get the GOvt to listen to your claims you are being lazy if you feel you should'nt pay it. But really don't pay it, and contact Channel 10 news or something
If you are lucky they may make this news, and you might get publicity and people would think about this subject.
Most people would say you are a loony or something...most likely Rush(but you knew he would). Its worth a shot...

*sigh*

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/red-herring.html

Fallacy: Red Herring

Also Known as: Smoke Screen, Wild Goose Chase.
Description of Red Herring
I'm sorry, but why are you bringing up smoke screens when everyone else is talking about fish? Please try to stick with the topic under discussion.

Thanks,
The Rogue Nation of Futplex

So because a woman is having sex--with the man who is raping her, she is consenting to the sex and the man's desire to rape her is ok? "

No but legally it is her child if she gets pregnant.
No, she is not conseting if it is rape since rape is unconsentual.

So it's her child if she gets pregnant? So what?

We don't need a government in the first place. "

Any nation you go to has a Govenment,

So?

you stayed in America for some reason or other...

It sucks less than others.

If you moved to jungle in south America or Africa you'd have no Government or moved to Iraq,...but that isn't best place either. I'm sorry, unless you can legally get the GOvt to listen to your claims you are being lazy if you feel you should'nt pay it. But really don't pay it, and contact Channel 10 news or something
If you are lucky they may make this news, and you might get publicity and people would think about this subject.
Most people would say you are a loony or something...most likely Rush(but you knew he would). Its worth a shot...

Have you ever done any research into political philosophy?

No, that's the proper Contractarian and Lockean Consent Theory sentiment.

Do tell me that you know what those positions are, and that I'm not wasting my time talking to a simpleton who hasn't done any research into political philosophy.

First- I'm not treating you like a jackass, don't treat me like one. Mutual respect doesn't hurt either of us, and it's make this a much more interesting conversation, yes?

Second, that's not contract theory in any sense of the word. I quoted, word for word, a passage from Locke explaining tacit consent. I'm not making this up. Clearly Locke understands his OWN theory.

Finally, I'm a polisci major, I very much enjoy political theory, and I have more than a passing knowledge of it.


Good. We don't need a government in the first place.


Uhh... according to all contract theorists, including Locke, we DO need a government. I thought you understood these theorists.

How exactly would we survive with no government? What would stop us from returning to a state of nature, and consequently a state of war?

Yes. Anything less than full consent is a violation of someone's rights.

I do not see any metaphysical or epistemic reason why the majority should have the right to rule over the minority. None whatsoever. Locke didn't even fully appreciate his consent theory ideas. He kept with the idea of majority rule. But from whence comes this right? No one has ever explained it.

Not according to contract theory. According to Locke, arguably the most vigorous defender of natural rights, tacit consent is a valid part of a democracy; a nessecary part even. The only one that would argue would be Rousseau, who you no doubt despise.

No one has ever explained the sacred nature of property, life and liberty rights either. The best you can do is agree with Kant and accept that as rational beings we SHOULD accept these as fundemental- however they're all purely subjective ideas, with no grounding in reality.

Majority rule is best explained, in my opinion, through utilitarianism.

However, Kant and Hegel have a tolerably good explanation as well.




Actually, it is. Jefferson, in the DoI, took Locke for what it really was: total consent. Hobbesian contractarianism--->government fills in the rest.
[quote/]

Total consent= consensus desicion making = community rule. I take it you're a 'small is beautiful' libertarain. That's great. But Jefferson wasn't, and clearly wouldn't create a constitution with such ideas knowing full well that it would have to apply to a nation of hundreds thousands (I have no idea what the population of the the US was at the time).

Moreover, I don't think it's tenable to take a position based on what Locke 'really meant', especially when he expressly writes otherwise.

[quote]
Either I pay them or I go to jail/have my property seized. That's being FORCED, no matter how you slice it.

You're forced to obey all laws, all of which restrict your freedom. Taxation is no different. If you believe all laws are inherently wrong, I would suggest you abandon 'Tax is Theft' and replace it with 'Fuck Society!

If you believe that somehow property is different than any other freedom, please explain how.

since by participating in government, you are consenting to it's desicions, and those desicions are effectively your own.

So because a woman is having sex--with the man who is raping her, she is consenting to the sex and the man's desire to rape her is ok?

That is the upshot of what you said, just in different words. I don't think you'd buy that line in a court, would you?

False analogy- if there were a democratically elected government that legislated, with the representation of all women, to allow rape, then, as a law, no matter how disgusting we think it, it would be legitimate.

A better analogy is murder. We consider it, and rightly, an infringment on the right to life. However, society has made laws to legitimate it under certain situations- i.e. if they are an immediate and present a threat to society, capital punishment, war, and, in certain societies, dueling.

Since you participate in desicion making, you must abide by these desicions- you do have the power to have them changed, should you gather support, after all.

Moreover, I'm puzzled you'd attack tacit consent as a non-sequitor as it's such an intrinsic part of contract theory. It's very relevant, and a fairly solid argument.

Oh sheesh. So I have to sit down, shut up, and like it? You can take that noise and shove it up your ass.

I'm not saying that at all. What I am saying is that before you start labelling theft, you should consider why our system works the way it does. In our society, clearly tax is not theft, according law, constitution and convention.

No, that's the proper Contractarian and Lockean Consent Theory sentiment.

Do tell me that you know what those positions are, and that I'm not wasting my time talking to a simpleton who hasn't done any research into political philosophy.

First- I'm not treating you like a jackass, don't treat me like one. Mutual respect doesn't hurt either of us, and it's make this a much more interesting conversation, yes?

No.

Second, that's not contract theory in any sense of the word. I quoted, word for word, a passage from Locke explaining tacit consent. I'm not making this up. Clearly Locke understands his OWN theory.

No, he doesn't. It's not uncommon, actually. A similar thing happened with Marx ripping on Hegel while using every bit of Hegel he could, and Rand ranting against anarchism while creating an fictitious anarchist enclave in Galt's Gulch.


Good. We don't need a government in the first place.


Uhh... according to all contract theorists, including Locke, we DO need a government.

Jan Narveson is a contract theorist.

Jan Narveson doesn't believe we need a government.

Ergo, you are wrong by counterexample.

How exactly would we survive with no government? What would stop us from returning to a state of nature, and consequently a state of war?

Lovely Hobbesian myth there. One man is not another man's wolf. You need to realize that.

Why would we go back to a "state of war" without a government? Show that it would happen (you are the one making that claim, you realize).

Yes. Anything less than full consent is a violation of someone's rights.

I do not see any metaphysical or epistemic reason why the majority should have the right to rule over the minority. None whatsoever. Locke didn't even fully appreciate his consent theory ideas. He kept with the idea of majority rule. But from whence comes this right? No one has ever explained it.


Not according to contract theory. According to Locke, arguably the most vigorous defender of natural rights, tacit consent is a valid part of a democracy; a nessecary part even. The only one that would argue would be Rousseau, who you no doubt despise.

Mostly.

No one has ever explained the sacred nature of property, life and liberty rights either.

Actually, they have. First comers and the like. It's called Contractarianism, and it starts with Hobbes.

Majority rule is best explained, in my opinion, through utilitarianism.

What gives them the right to rule over the minority, and thus negate the rights of the minority?


Actually, it is. Jefferson, in the DoI, took Locke for what it really was: total consent. Hobbesian contractarianism--->government fills in the rest.


Total consent= consensus desicion making = community rule. I take it you're a 'small is beautiful' libertarain.

Anarchocapitalist.

That's great. But Jefferson wasn't, and clearly wouldn't create a constitution with such ideas knowing full well that it would have to apply to a nation of hundreds thousands (I have no idea what the population of the the US was at the time).

Moreover, I don't think it's tenable to take a position based on what Locke 'really meant', especially when he expressly writes otherwise.

As from above, philosophers aren't always consistent.


Either I pay them or I go to jail/have my property seized. That's being FORCED, no matter how you slice it.

You're forced to obey all laws, all of which restrict your freedom.

No, I agree to refrain from certain behaviors because I realize the consequences--not from the government, but from other people.

Taxation is no different.

Taxation is very different. Where did the government get this right to my property?

If you believe that somehow property is different than any other freedom, please explain how.

?

since by participating in government, you are consenting to it's desicions, and those desicions are effectively your own.

So because a woman is having sex--with the man who is raping her, she is consenting to the sex and the man's desire to rape her is ok?

That is the upshot of what you said, just in different words. I don't think you'd buy that line in a court, would you?

False analogy

Actually no, it's not. It's a perfect analogy. I never consented to various services and taxes, just like the woman never consented to the sex. It's a dead-on analogy, whether or not there is a law or "democratically elected government". Those items matter not.

[snip]

Since you participate in desicion making, you must abide by these desicions- you do have the power to have them changed, should you gather support, after all.

I don't have to abide by them. Nor does anyone else.

Rosa Parks didn't abide by the law that required blacks to give up their seats to whites on a bus. You would have her comply because the law was from a democratically elected government.

Moreover, I'm puzzled you'd attack tacit consent as a non-sequitor as it's such an intrinsic part of contract theory.

No, it isn't. Not how you think it is.

Oh sheesh. So I have to sit down, shut up, and like it? You can take that noise and shove it up your ass.

I'm not saying that at all.

You certainly are.

What I am saying is that before you start labelling theft, you should consider why our system works the way it does. In our society, clearly tax is not theft, according law, constitution and convention.

Oh how positivist of you. That really works as an argument: the government made it legal Therefore it isn't theft.

What sort of utterly specious garbage are you trying to throw here?

QUestions:

Why do we have an intrinsic right to anything? How do we get these rights?

without society and the rules and socialization contain within it, why wouldn't I kill you and jack your shit, morality clearly being a construction?
There are many examples of anarchy (in the 'bad' sense of the word) occuring whenever there is no authority figures. However, there are no historical examples of peaceful anarchic rule. How should this be explained from your viewpoint?

I'll respond to your post in detail tommorow, as I'm going out to enjoy the fruits of our society- strippers and booze.

QUestions:

Why do we have an intrinsic right to anything? How do we get these rights?

You've heard of contractarianism, right?

without society and the rules and socialization contain within it, why wouldn't I kill you and jack your shit, morality clearly being a construction?

Whoawhoawhoa! Kill that strawman equivocation right now.

It's not no society. It's no government. The two are NOT the same.

There are many examples of anarchy (in the 'bad' sense of the word) occuring whenever there is no authority figures. However, there are no historical examples of peaceful anarchic rule.

Saga-period Iceland.

You have been refuted.

You've heard of contractarianism, right?

Yes, and contractarianists generally agree that rights are constructions and thus are subject to the agreements of socieities.

Whoawhoawhoa! Kill that strawman equivocation right now.

It's not no society. It's no government. The two are NOT the same.

True. But the difference is generally negligible. Both have rules, both have conventions, and both are constructions. One good say that government is a manifestation of a society.

What would you say is the fundmental difference between government and society?

There are many examples of anarchy (in the 'bad' sense of the word) occuring whenever there is no authority figures. However, there are no historical examples of peaceful anarchic rule.

Saga-period Iceland.

You have been refuted.[/quote]

Not a particularly good example, as saga-period Iceland wasn't anything near libertarian anarcho-capitalism. If anything it demonstrates a communal-anarcho civilization, something you clearly wouldn't want anyways.

I may have been a bit simplistic about Hong Kong--but not much. When China took over Hong Kong in 1997, the Beijing government ousted the freely-elected government council and imposed its own nominee (Tung Che-hwa--ironically a wealthy capitalist) as "Chief Executive". It formed a puppet political party, and has made sure that no serious opposition could develop. Recently, however, it did abandon (after widespread protests) a proposed "anti-subversive" law that would have made criticism of the government punishable by life imprisonment. Not exactly a haven of freedom, but probably considerably better than the rest of the PRC. Economically, Hong Kong has been in a considerable slump ever since the takeover. The Chinese have tightened things up somewhat, but the place still has an essentially free enterprise economy.

I realise that this might not touch too much on Hong Kong's degree of "capitalism", but it does touch on the degree of FREEDOM, which is what capitalism is supposed to be all about. There's more to freedom than having a free market.

I may have been a bit simplistic about Hong Kong--but not much. When China took over Hong Kong in 1997, the Beijing government ousted the freely-elected government council and imposed its own nominee (Tung Che-hwa--ironically a wealthy capitalist) as "Chief Executive". It formed a puppet political party, and has made sure that no serious opposition could develop. Recently, however, it did abandon (after widespread protests) a proposed "anti-subversive" law that would have made criticism of the government punishable by life imprisonment. Not exactly a haven of freedom, but probably considerably better than the rest of the PRC. Economically, Hong Kong has been in a considerable slump ever since the takeover. The Chinese have tightened things up somewhat, but the place still has an essentially free enterprise economy.

I realise that this might not touch too much on Hong Kong's degree of "capitalism", but it does touch on the degree of FREEDOM, which is what capitalism is supposed to be all about. There's more to freedom than having a free market.

I'm well aware that freedom means more than a free market.

But a free market is the FIRST STEP and a necessary prerequisites.

ALL free nations have more or less free markets.

And since China has adopted a more open system its been making some steps...baby steps, but steps nonetheless...towards democracy. You no longer need to be a party member to become governor of a province, anti-sedition laws have been removed in many univerisities, the Cato Institute is officially endorsed by the Chinese government (because they're the only people in Washington that support free trade NO MATTER WHAT), and the Shanghai city administration is letting beggars back on the larger streets again.

As clearly demonstrated throughout the Eastern Pacific Rim, economic freedom is only a PREREQUISITE and not a GUARENTEE of personal freedom.

There are really THREE possible systems in the world today:
-High economic freedom, high personal freedom [Capitalist or Democratic countries] (US, Western Europe, Japan, etc.)
-High economic freedom, low personal freedom [Fascist countries] (China, Singapore, Saudi Arabia, etc.)
-Low economic freedom, low personal freedom [Communist or Dictatorship countries] (Most of Africa, Cuba, North Korea, etc.)

The Glossary of Economic Freedom ranks countries then splits then into the categories blue (more than 80% capitalist), green (61-80%), yellow (41-60%), orange (21-40%), and red (0-20%).

ALL of Western Eruope and Japan are either blue or green and MOST of the countries are rated in the blue.

So even while we Americans consider them socialist, they still have relatively high amounts of economic freedom, respect of property rights, etc., compared to, oh say, Laos.
-

I'm typing this on a computer with an M.S.I. motherboard made in China by a Taiwan company. I also had a long conversation fairly recently with a Chinese patent attorney who worked for a Beijing law firm. (He didn't want to talk much about Tibet--I wonder why). So I'm somewhat aware of the subtleties of what's happening in China.

What bothers me, though, is all the Free Market-Ayn Rand types who will gladly tear into Sweden and give China a free pass--knowing that the people of Sweden have vastly more personal freedom. They also didn't seem to mind General Pinochet murdering and torturing his people when he was dictator of Chile, just so long as he invited Milton Friedman down to help reorganise the economy.

I would pay a lot more attention to their ideas if they showed some commitment to freedom across-the-board. (I don't mean that personally, just as a general observation about the "Libertarians" and "Objectivists" I've known.)

I'm typing this on a computer with an M.S.I. motherboard made in China by a Taiwan company. I also had a long conversation fairly recently with a Chinese patent attorney who worked for a Beijing law firm. (He didn't want to talk much about Tibet--I wonder why). So I'm somewhat aware of the subtleties of what's happening in China.

What bothers me, though, is all the Free Market-Ayn Rand types who will gladly tear into Sweden and give China a free pass--knowing that the people of Sweden have vastly more personal freedom. They also didn't seem to mind General Pinochet murdering and torturing his people when he was dictator of Chile, just so long as he invited Milton Friedman down to help reorganise the economy.

I would pay a lot more attention to their ideas if they showed some commitment to freedom across-the-board. (I don't mean that personally, just as a general observation about the "Libertarians" and "Objectivists" I've known.)

Point taken. I don't know ANY libertarians or objectivists that would argue that China is doing a better job than Sweden.

However, the reason we "tear into Sweden and give China is a free pass" is that whereas Sweden is regressing, China is progressing.

At this rate, it is not unfeasible that the Chinese will enjoy more personal freedom than the Swedes by the end of the century.

We Libertarians don't condone the Chinese government, but we realize that free trade is the best way to democratize the country. Therefore, we support free trade no matter what.

It is strongly supported by history that countries wishing to defend personal freedom must first be RICH and ECONOMICALLY FREE.

No third-world countries enjoy the same level of freedom as the first-world. Whereas, of high income countries, only Singapore and Saudi Arabia aren't free nations.

China is a developing country that is still trying to improve its economy. After its income goes up and a generation change occurs it probably WILL democratize.

However, if Sweden continues on its current path, a big-government welfare-state will emerge after per capita income stagnates enough and a generation change occurs and it may undemocratize.

You've heard of contractarianism, right?

Yes, and contractarianists generally agree that rights are constructions and thus are subject to the agreements of socieities.

Ok.

Whoawhoawhoa! Kill that strawman equivocation right now.

It's not no society. It's no government. The two are NOT the same.

True. But the difference is generally negligible.

False. The two are distinct concepts. The government is a tiny minority of people within the society who have gained a monopoly control over lawmaking and the use of retaliatory force and can initiate force without response.

Both have rules, both have conventions, and both are constructions.

Which in no way makes them essentially the same.

One could say that government is a manifestation of a society.

Smacks of Hegel's Geist

What would you say is the fundmental difference between government and society?

A society is a collection of individuals living in a given area who tend to have similar customs and norms.

A government is the monopoly lawmaker and force-issuer within it.

There are many examples of anarchy (in the 'bad' sense of the word) occuring whenever there is no authority figures. However, there are no historical examples of peaceful anarchic rule.

Saga-period Iceland.

You have been refuted.

Not a particularly good example, as saga-period Iceland wasn't anything near libertarian anarcho-capitalism.

Ever read David D. Friedman's writeup on it?

If anything it demonstrates a communal-anarcho civilization, something you clearly wouldn't want anyways.

Actually, it wasn't as "communal" as you would have as qua "communism" implied. Seats in the legislature were up for sale, etc.

The reason the state owns most of the land in Hong Kong is because THE ENTIRE PLACE IS A CITY. [/quote]

Just like New York, San Francisco, and Seattle, right? Except I didn't say "most of" the land; I said "all" the land.

The VALUE of land in Hong Kong is THE HIGHEST IN THE WORLD. Nobody can afford it, so nobody buys it. They can if they want to though.

The rent subsidy thing ended decades back after it failed miserably.

Their healthcare is subsidized but it's still privately-run.

Someone had better tell Hong Kong's Housing Authority about that, because they're under the impression that two million people (a third of Hong Kong's population) live in Housing Authority flats. They should probably update their resumes and stuff.

*sigh*

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/red-herring.html

Fallacy: Red Herring

Also Known as: Smoke Screen, Wild Goose Chase.
Description of Red Herring
I'm sorry, but why are you bringing up smoke screens when everyone else is talking about fish? Please try to stick with the topic under discussion.

Thanks,
The Rogue Nation of Futplex

Because smoked herring is goooood.

False. The two are distinct concepts. The government is a tiny minority of people within the society who have gained a monopoly control over lawmaking and the use of retaliatory force and can initiate force without response.

That's a normative statement. I personally don't think it's a 'minority' segment of society making these desicions as a whole. Some governments are oppressive; some aren't. But for that matter, there are oppressive societies as well- or is oppressiveness itself that seperates the two for you? Chimps don't have governments, but they definitely inflict violence on each other, steal from each other, and, on occasion, eat each others children. Is your ideal society one of essentially vigilante justice? Before we go on, I'd like to have SOME idea of what exactly you view a perfect social order would resemble.


Both have rules, both have conventions, and both are constructions.

Which in no way makes them essentially the same.
So your argument hinges, in Lockian terms, on the surrender of the right to execute the law of nature? As soon as we give up our right to punish each other to the state, we instantly become oppressed? I don't think that follows. Moreover, personally I'd rather live in a society we collectively agree on what the rules will be than in one where everyone makes up their own to suit themselves.


One could say that government is a manifestation of a society.

Smacks of Hegel's Geist

Yep. And Rousseau's general will, which you would absolutely DESPISE, clearly.


Actually, it wasn't as "communal" as you would have as qua "communism" implied. Seats in the legislature were up for sale, etc.

I could be wrong, as I know nearly nil about Iceland, but I believe there was significant communal property involved.

I'm fairly sure that the system in place concentrated wealth into fewer and fewer hands (something which I would hope your system would avoid?), which eventually led to a collapse of the whole system in a relatively short time- not exactly a compelling example.

False. The two are distinct concepts. The government is a tiny minority of people within the society who have gained a monopoly control over lawmaking and the use of retaliatory force and can initiate force without response.

That's a normative statement. I personally don't think it's a 'minority' segment of society making these desicions as a whole.

Strawman. I said it was a minority of people who have gained monopoly control over lawmaking and use of retaliatory force and can initiate force without response, not that they make all the decisions.

Some governments are oppressive; some aren't. But for that matter, there are oppressive societies as well- or is oppressiveness itself that seperates the two for you? Chimps don't have governments, but they definitely inflict violence on each other, steal from each other, and, on occasion, eat each others children. Is your ideal society one of essentially vigilante justice? Before we go on, I'd like to have SOME idea of what exactly you view a perfect social order would resemble.

There's no such thing as perfection.


Both have rules, both have conventions, and both are constructions.

Which in no way makes them essentially the same.

So your argument hinges, in Lockian terms, on the surrender of the right to execute the law of nature? As soon as we give up our right to punish each other to the state, we instantly become oppressed?

No, that's not what I said. Please don't create a strawman.

All governed must consent to being governed or else those not consenting are having initiatory force imposed on them.

Besides--what rational person would consent to having someone govern him/her?

I don't think that follows. Moreover, personally I'd rather live in a society we collectively agree on what the rules will be than in one where everyone makes up their own to suit themselves.

That's what contractarianism is all about.



Actually, it wasn't as "communal" as you would have as qua "communism" implied. Seats in the legislature were up for sale, etc.

I could be wrong, as I know nearly nil about Iceland, but I believe there was significant communal property involved.

There was a system of private property.

I'm fairly sure that the system in place concentrated wealth into fewer and fewer hands (something which I would hope your system would avoid?), which eventually led to a collapse of the whole system in a relatively short time- not exactly a compelling example.

Actually, your pseudo-Marxist idea isn't what happened. The rise of christian missionaries from the continent and the force they brought with them eventually changed Iceland, but for 300 years there was no government in Iceland.

Strawman. I said it was a minority of people who have gained monopoly control over lawmaking and use of retaliatory force and can initiate force without response, not that they make all the decisions.

Now your quibbling- control over lawmaking is equivalent to making descions, especially when discussing theoretically.

Some governments are oppressive; some aren't. But for that matter, there are oppressive societies as well- or is oppressiveness itself that seperates the two for you? Chimps don't have governments, but they definitely inflict violence on each other, steal from each other, and, on occasion, eat each others children. Is your ideal society one of essentially vigilante justice? Before we go on, I'd like to have SOME idea of what exactly you view a perfect social order would resemble.

There's no such thing as perfection.

That's a terrible answer. Besides, I didn't ask you what a perfect social order is, I asked you it WOULD be.

I'll rephrase. What social order would you find preferrable?



So your argument hinges, in Lockian terms, on the surrender of the right to execute the law of nature? As soon as we give up our right to punish each other to the state, we instantly become oppressed?

No, that's not what I said. Please don't create a strawman.

All governed must consent to being governed or else those not consenting are having initiatory force imposed on them.

Besides--what rational person would consent to having someone govern him/her?


How can I create a straw man by asking questions?

Moreover, informal societies attack outsiders as much as codified governments do, especially anthropologically speaking.

All I'm asking is for you to clearly delineate how you percieve an ideal (or nearly ideal, if you prefer) anarcho-capitalist system would work.


That's what contractarianism is all about.

Yes it is. We just have different ideas about the nature of the social contract.


There was a system of private property.

From my understanding theere was also communal property.

Actually, your pseudo-Marxist idea isn't what happened. The rise of christian missionaries from the continent and the force they brought with them eventually changed Iceland, but for 300 years there was no government in Iceland.

That's pretty contentious. Most of the material I've read indicates that wealth accumulated into the hands of 6 families who became increasingly divise. There was a prolonged power struggle, which the Norse King exploited, and ended this period of Icelandic history.

Strawman. I said it was a minority of people who have gained monopoly control over lawmaking and use of retaliatory force and can initiate force without response, not that they make all the decisions.

Now your quibbling- control over lawmaking is equivalent to making descions, especially when discussing theoretically.

Not under anarchocapitalism.

Some governments are oppressive; some aren't. But for that matter, there are oppressive societies as well- or is oppressiveness itself that seperates the two for you? Chimps don't have governments, but they definitely inflict violence on each other, steal from each other, and, on occasion, eat each others children. Is your ideal society one of essentially vigilante justice? Before we go on, I'd like to have SOME idea of what exactly you view a perfect social order would resemble.

There's no such thing as perfection.

That's a terrible answer. Besides, I didn't ask you what a perfect social order is, I asked you it WOULD be.

And I answered: there's no such thing as perfection.

Do you understand?

I'll rephrase. What social order would you find preferrable?

One without a government, where people are free to shop for courts, police, legal codes, etc.

So your argument hinges, in Lockian terms, on the surrender of the right to execute the law of nature? As soon as we give up our right to punish each other to the state, we instantly become oppressed?

No, that's not what I said. Please don't create a strawman.

All governed must consent to being governed or else those not consenting are having initiatory force imposed on them.

Besides--what rational person would consent to having someone govern him/her?


How can I create a straw man by asking questions?

I asked you not to, not that you did.

Moreover, informal societies attack outsiders as much as codified governments do, especially anthropologically speaking.

All I'm asking is for you to clearly delineate how you percieve an ideal (or nearly ideal, if you prefer) anarcho-capitalist system would work.

Impossible to do in specifics, otherwise that would be a show for central planning. All I can offer is that people would be able to buy law, contracts for police, etc.

Actually, your pseudo-Marxist idea isn't what happened. The rise of christian missionaries from the continent and the force they brought with them eventually changed Iceland, but for 300 years there was no government in Iceland.

That's pretty contentious. Most of the material I've read indicates that wealth accumulated into the hands of 6 families who became increasingly divise. There was a prolonged power struggle, which the Norse King exploited, and ended this period of Icelandic history.

That's not what I've read in the sense of the Norse king truly exploiting it. Yes, much wealth did go to a few families. But it wasn't because of that nor certain "rivalries" that ended the system.

I'll rephrase. What social order would you find preferrable?

One without a government, where people are free to shop for courts, police, legal codes, etc.



Questions-

Wouldn't the wealthiest faction inevitably control the system? It seems like since everyone has access to anything, I could just hire the biggest army and take everyone else over. I don't understand how this wouldn't result in a Hobbesian state of nature- since it's a capitalist system, which is inherently based on notions of self-interest- wouldn't the strongest (i.e. richest) ultimately control everything? If not, why?

Wouldn't this recquire revolution? As an anarchist, you've essentially expressed no faith in democratic process. This seems to me a recipe for disaster for several reasons.

I appreciate your willingness to discuss this subject.

I'll rephrase. What social order would you find preferrable?

One without a government, where people are free to shop for courts, police, legal codes, etc.



Questions-

Wouldn't the wealthiest faction inevitably control the system? It seems like since everyone has access to anything, I could just hire the biggest army and take everyone else over. I don't understand how this wouldn't result in a Hobbesian state of nature- since it's a capitalist system, which is inherently based on notions of self-interest- wouldn't the strongest (i.e. richest) ultimately control everything? If not, why?

Wouldn't this recquire revolution? As an anarchist, you've essentially expressed no faith in democratic process. This seems to me a recipe for disaster for several reasons.

I appreciate your willingness to discuss this subject.

I'll rephrase. What social order would you find preferrable?

One without a government, where people are free to shop for courts, police, legal codes, etc.



Questions-

Wouldn't the wealthiest faction inevitably control the system?

No, for there is no "system" save for the market.

It seems like since everyone has access to anything, I could just hire the biggest army and take everyone else over. I don't understand how this wouldn't result in a Hobbesian state of nature- since it's a capitalist system, which is inherently based on notions of self-interest- wouldn't the strongest (i.e. richest) ultimately control everything? If not, why?

Because it wouldn't be in your self-interest to commit so many resources to an army, when you could better spend those resources on your business. Simple, n'est-ce pas?

Wouldn't this recquire revolution? As an anarchist, you've essentially expressed no faith in democratic process. This seems to me a recipe for disaster for several reasons.

It would take time and education to eradicate the viral meme that is statism. Just as the religion/deity meme is showing cracks, so too shall statism.

No, for there is no "system" save for the market.

Right, so there would be no way to check the wealthiest parties. The best you could do is organize some sort of boycott, which may or not work, depending on what assets these wealthy powers controlled. If a party gets a regional monopoly on agricultures, there's not much you can do to effect their policies.


Because it wouldn't be in your self-interest to commit so many resources to an army, when you could better spend those resources on your business. Simple, n'est-ce pas?

I disagree. If no one considers aggressive action a concern, you could easily 'conquer' an area. You could then extract anything you wanted from it: you could sell all assets, keep them for yourself, run a colonial-esque captive market, even engage in slavery since no one else would be able to stop you. If others do consider this a concern, and thus raise militias or the like you are effectively in a Hobbesian state of nature, a war of all against all. That someone would attempt this is inevtiable: since the first person to 'conquer' is going to end up with the easiest fight, it's advantageous to be the agressor.

Moreover, this completely ignores other kinds of contention- what about ethnic and cultural disputes? Currently, most wars worldwide are intrastate clashes based on these lines. How is an anarcho capitalist society going to deal with these kinds of conflicts?

What about piracy? Clearly it's in an individual's best interest to extract the most utility from the least amount of work- in a world without enforcement mechanisms founded on capitalist ideals in makes sense to steal as much as possible.

No, for there is no "system" save for the market.

Right, so there would be no way to check the wealthiest parties. The best you could do is organize some sort of boycott, which may or not work, depending on what assets these wealthy powers controlled. If a party gets a regional monopoly on agricultures, there's not much you can do to effect their policies.


Because it wouldn't be in your self-interest to commit so many resources to an army, when you could better spend those resources on your business. Simple, n'est-ce pas?

I disagree. If no one considers aggressive action a concern, you could easily 'conquer' an area. You could then extract anything you wanted from it: you could sell all assets, keep them for yourself, run a colonial-esque captive market, even engage in slavery since no one else would be able to stop you. If others do consider this a concern, and thus raise militias or the like you are effectively in a Hobbesian state of nature, a war of all against all. That someone would attempt this is inevtiable: since the first person to 'conquer' is going to end up with the easiest fight, it's advantageous to be the agressor.

Moreover, this completely ignores other kinds of contention- what about ethnic and cultural disputes? Currently, most wars worldwide are intrastate clashes based on these lines. How is an anarcho capitalist society going to deal with these kinds of conflicts?

What about piracy? Clearly it's in an individual's best interest to extract the most utility from the least amount of work- in a world without enforcement mechanisms founded on capitalist ideals in makes sense to steal as much as possible.

No, for there is no "system" save for the market.

Right, so there would be no way to check the wealthiest parties. The best you could do is organize some sort of boycott, which may or not work, depending on what assets these wealthy powers controlled. If a party gets a regional monopoly on agricultures, there's not much you can do to effect their policies.

1. Where's the system for such?

2. How is there going to be a coercive monopoly without a government fiat to make it so?


Because it wouldn't be in your self-interest to commit so many resources to an army, when you could better spend those resources on your business. Simple, n'est-ce pas?

I disagree.

Disagree all you like. But the fact remains that resources committed for agression take away from resources elsewhere, and that isn't good for business, now is it?

If no one considers aggressive action a concern, you could easily 'conquer' an area.

And who wouldn't consider it a concern?

[snip Hobbesian myth]

Moreover, this completely ignores other kinds of contention- what about ethnic and cultural disputes? Currently, most wars worldwide are intrastate clashes based on these lines. How is an anarcho capitalist society going to deal with these kinds of conflicts?

Most wars are fostered by the state. Without the state to fan the flames, how's there going to be a war?

What about piracy? Clearly it's in an individual's best interest to extract the most utility from the least amount of work- in a world without enforcement mechanisms founded on capitalist ideals in makes sense to steal as much as possible.

Why wouldn't there be enforcement mechanisms? Don't beg the question.

2. How is there going to be a coercive monopoly without a government fiat to make it so?

Now that the state doesn't have a monopoly on physical coercion, any band of outlaws with more guns than the populace can make it so. Those with more guns make the rules. This could mean bandits, or it could mean hostile communities who see easy targets.


Disagree all you like. But the fact remains that resources committed for agression take away from resources elsewhere, and that isn't good for business, now is it?

It is if you buisness IS agression. Say we have wealth concentrated, even to a limited degree, as it occured in the Iceland example. Someone born into a poor group would no doubt find it easier to turn a profit through banditry than through menial labour. Since we've there patently isn't a powerful enforcement body, these bandits will take over if they've more guns than the populace.


If no one considers aggressive action a concern, you could easily 'conquer' an area.

And who wouldn't consider it a concern?

[snip Hobbesian myth]

I don't understand. You're just going to assume people aren't naturally aggressive by nature, and can exist in a fundementally competitive society, without enforced rules, without trying to take advantage of each other? Am I mistaken in my assupmtions here? Please explain.


Moreover, this completely ignores other kinds of contention- what about ethnic and cultural disputes? Currently, most wars worldwide are intrastate clashes based on these lines. How is an anarcho capitalist society going to deal with these kinds of conflicts?

Most wars are fostered by the state. Without the state to fan the flames, how's there going to be a war?

Not any more they aren't. Statistically speaking, more wars are now INTRA-state than interstate. THe major sources for contention are cultural, ethnic and religious divides, as well as competition for limited resources.

This leads me to another point- in current failed states, the dissolution of the state structure has led INEVITABLY to violence, without exception. Look at Sierra Leone for an excellent example.


What about piracy? Clearly it's in an individual's best interest to extract the most utility from the least amount of work- in a world without enforcement mechanisms founded on capitalist ideals in makes sense to steal as much as possible.

Why wouldn't there be enforcement mechanisms? Don't beg the question.

Free rider scenario.

2. How is there going to be a coercive monopoly without a government fiat to make it so?

Now that the state doesn't have a monopoly on physical coercion, any band of outlaws with more guns than the populace can make it so.

Why wouldn't there be some police force?


Disagree all you like. But the fact remains that resources committed for agression take away from resources elsewhere, and that isn't good for business, now is it?

It is if you buisness IS agression. Say we have wealth concentrated, even to a limited degree, as it occured in the Iceland example. Someone born into a poor group would no doubt find it easier to turn a profit through banditry than through menial labour. Since we've there patently isn't a powerful enforcement body, these bandits will take over if they've more guns than the populace.

Again, why wouldn't there be some police force, or some form of defense?


If no one considers aggressive action a concern, you could easily 'conquer' an area.

And who wouldn't consider it a concern?

[snip Hobbesian myth]


I don't understand. You're just going to assume people aren't naturally aggressive by nature, and can exist in a fundementally competitive society, without enforced rules, without trying to take advantage of each other? Am I mistaken in my assupmtions here? Please explain.

You are wholly mistaken. You, like Hobbes, believe that one man is another man's wolf. Reality shows that quite the contrary, humans can and do get along very well.

However, this does not mean that there wouldn't be rules. I don't know why you're trying to promulgate the non sequitur that no government = no laws or "rules"/code of conduct.


Moreover, this completely ignores other kinds of contention- what about ethnic and cultural disputes? Currently, most wars worldwide are intrastate clashes based on these lines. How is an anarcho capitalist society going to deal with these kinds of conflicts?

Most wars are fostered by the state. Without the state to fan the flames, how's there going to be a war?

Not any more they aren't. Statistically speaking, more wars are now INTRA-state than interstate. THe major sources for contention are cultural, ethnic and religious divides, as well as competition for limited resources.

And most of those places are third-world shitholes which have either a socialist system or simply live in a tribalistic bend that has a ruler which fans the flames of us vs them.

How's that helping your case?

This leads me to another point- in current failed states, the dissolution of the state structure has led INEVITABLY to violence, without exception. Look at Sierra Leone for an excellent example.

And those places were already third-world shitholes which never advanced beyond tribalistic prejudices. How's that helping your case?


What about piracy? Clearly it's in an individual's best interest to extract the most utility from the least amount of work- in a world without enforcement mechanisms founded on capitalist ideals in makes sense to steal as much as possible.

Why wouldn't there be enforcement mechanisms? Don't beg the question.

Free rider scenario.

The Free Rider as a Basis for Government Intervention
Pasour, Jr., E.C. (Vol. 5 Num. 4) (http://www.mises.org/journals/jls/5_4/5_4_6.pdf)

Yes, I know all about the free rider problem. It exists actually moreso in a statist system. So how is this helping your case?

Now that the state doesn't have a monopoly on physical coercion, any band of outlaws with more guns than the populace can make it so.

It is if you buisness IS agression. Say we have wealth concentrated, even to a limited degree, as it occured in the Iceland example. Someone born into a poor group would no doubt find it easier to turn a profit through banditry than through menial labour. Since we've there patently isn't a powerful enforcement body, these bandits will take over if they've more guns than the populace.

Again, why wouldn't there be some police force, or some form of defense?


If no one considers aggressive action a concern, you could easily 'conquer' an area.

And who wouldn't consider it a concern?

[snip Hobbesian myth]


You are advocating private police, yes?

Problems here:
1) Police are privately funded, and thus will protect only the rich. Perhaps this is accetable to you. If the poor do get a police force, it will be inferior to that of the rich.
2) Private police are responsible and accoutable only for and to those that employ them. They those have no moral or contractual obligation to anyone else. In essence, these police will nessecarily be a private army.
3) In a situation where one army is clearly larger than the other, it will be in the best intrest of the 'owner' of the larger army to attack the smaller:
a) to ensure the smaller army doesn't grow (diffidence)
b) to acquire resources (competition)
c) to acquire a reputation, thereby making htemselves more feared, and less likely to be attacked in turn.
Moreover, they can all of these things without fear of significant loss. The smaller army will breach their conflict as soon as it becomes apparent they will not win. If they lose, they won't get paid anyways, so it is in there best interests to simply give up.
Thus the larger army, i.e. that of the richest party, will inevitably dominate.
This seems to lead inexorably towards oligarchy.


I don't understand. You're just going to assume people aren't naturally aggressive by nature, and can exist in a fundementally competitive society, without enforced rules, without trying to take advantage of each other? Am I mistaken in my assupmtions here? Please explain.

You are wholly mistaken. You, like Hobbes, believe that one man is another man's wolf. Reality shows that quite the contrary, humans can and do get along very well.

However, this does not mean that there wouldn't be rules. I don't know why you're trying to promulgate the non sequitur that no government = no laws or "rules"/code of conduct.

I think reality shows that men sometimes get along, and sometimes 'are each others wolves'. When structuring a society, I would like a system where I can be sure the wolves are kept away rather than relying on hypothetical benevolence.

The problem is that without government, there can be no legitimate enforcement of law. If I don't consent to a law, how can it apply to me?


And most of those places are third-world shitholes which have either a socialist system or simply live in a tribalistic bend that has a ruler which fans the flames of us vs them.

How's that helping your case?

Well, for one it shows that conflict does indeed exist outside the state, as should be obvious. Clearly there are many wars in history that predate the modern nation state.

I'm also curious- are you suggesting we should erase cultural and ethnic social systems? Moreover, I don't know any third-world 'shitholes' failed states with socialist systems.


And those places were already third-world shitholes which never advanced beyond tribalistic prejudices. How's that helping your case?

'never advanced beyone tribalistic prejudices'... how deliciously Eurocentric! What exactly are tribalistic prejudices, per se? How do they measure up with the state- better or worse?

Also, wasn't Saga period-Iceland very nearly tribal?- very family oriented anyways...

Now that the state doesn't have a monopoly on physical coercion, any band of outlaws with more guns than the populace can make it so.

It is if you buisness IS agression. Say we have wealth concentrated, even to a limited degree, as it occured in the Iceland example. Someone born into a poor group would no doubt find it easier to turn a profit through banditry than through menial labour. Since we've there patently isn't a powerful enforcement body, these bandits will take over if they've more guns than the populace.

Again, why wouldn't there be some police force, or some form of defense?


If no one considers aggressive action a concern, you could easily 'conquer' an area.

And who wouldn't consider it a concern?

[snip Hobbesian myth]


You are advocating private police, yes?

Problems here:
1) Police are privately funded, and thus will protect only the rich.

Unsupported assertion.

Perhaps this is accetable to you. If the poor do get a police force, it will be inferior to that of the rich.

Unsupported assertion.

2) Private police are responsible and accoutable only for and to those that employ them. They those have no moral or contractual obligation to anyone else. In essence, these police will nessecarily be a private army.

Non sequitur strawman. The private police would be much like today's private security firms. You've heard of Brinks right?

3) In a situation where one army is clearly larger than the other, it will be in the best intrest of the 'owner' of the larger army to attack the smaller:

Non sequitur

[snip Hobbesian lunacy]

Do you have anything besides the Hobbesian myth, so clearly demonstrated false in reality?



I don't understand. You're just going to assume people aren't naturally aggressive by nature, and can exist in a fundementally competitive society, without enforced rules, without trying to take advantage of each other? Am I mistaken in my assupmtions here? Please explain.

You are wholly mistaken. You, like Hobbes, believe that one man is another man's wolf. Reality shows that quite the contrary, humans can and do get along very well.

However, this does not mean that there wouldn't be rules. I don't know why you're trying to promulgate the non sequitur that no government = no laws or "rules"/code of conduct.

I think reality shows that men sometimes get along, and sometimes 'are each others wolves'. When structuring a society, I would like a system where I can be sure the wolves are kept away rather than relying on hypothetical benevolence.

So you say that humanity is innately evil?

No, of course you don't.

So why do you buy into the Hobbesian myth?

The problem is that without government, there can be no legitimate enforcement of law.

Non sequitur.

If I don't consent to a law, how can it apply to me?

Similar to the way such things are handled now.



And most of those places are third-world shitholes which have either a socialist system or simply live in a tribalistic bend that has a ruler which fans the flames of us vs them.

How's that helping your case?

Well, for one it shows that conflict does indeed exist outside the state, as should be obvious.

A case could be made that it's not really anarchy, given the tribal leaders.

I'm also curious- are you suggesting we should erase cultural and ethnic social systems?

No.

Moreover, I don't know any third-world 'shitholes' failed states with socialist systems.

Uganda, Rwanda, etc.


And those places were already third-world shitholes which never advanced beyond tribalistic prejudices. How's that helping your case?

'never advanced beyone tribalistic prejudices'... how deliciously Eurocentric!

How deliciously fallacious.


Also, wasn't Saga period-Iceland very nearly tribal?- very family oriented anyways...

Family, yes.

You are advocating private police, yes?

Problems here:
1) Police are privately funded, and thus will protect only the rich.

Unsupported assertion.

Perhaps this is accetable to you. If the poor do get a police force, it will be inferior to that of the rich.

Unsupported assertion.

So... they're publically funded then? Explain

2) Private police are responsible and accoutable only for and to those that employ them. They those have no moral or contractual obligation to anyone else. In essence, these police will nessecarily be a private army.

Non sequitur strawman. The private police would be much like today's private security firms. You've heard of Brinks right?

Non sequiter on your part, actually. There is clearly a difference between police, who exercise the law, and security firms, who excersice the will of private parties within the law. Without police, you have BRinks in armoured cars, armed to the hilt and legitimately able to shoot anyone they want.


3) In a situation where one army is clearly larger than the other, it will be in the best intrest of the 'owner' of the larger army to attack the smaller:

Non sequitur

[snip Hobbesian lunacy]

Do you have anything besides the Hobbesian myth, so clearly demonstrated false in reality?

Expalin. And, for that matter, Sierra Leone is a real world example of EXACTLY this sort of thing happening- Sierra Leone being a capitalist nation under Britain until the late 60s, then slowly collapsing into anarchy. What's particularly fascinating is that in this very Hobbesian state of nature is a continued interest in trade and profits- Blood diamonds, to be specific. Perhaps this would be a model of Anarcho-Capitalism?

I would like you to demonstrate that the 'Hobbesian myth' is false


So you say that humanity is innately evil?

No, of course you don't.

So why do you buy into the Hobbesian myth?
I am saying that some humans are innately evil, and many are easily led. Thus in order to protect myself I must prepare for the worst- anything else is pure foolishness.


Similar to the way such things are handled now.


I thought you didn't like the way such things are handled now?
A case could be made that it's not really anarchy, given the tribal leaders.

That's such a convenient argument for anarchists and communists- USSR wasn't REALLY communism.

Moreover, it IS an absence of state, which is what you seem to have a problem with anyways. Even in Saga Iceland there were family chiefs.


Uganda, Rwanda, etc.

They weren't "really" socialist. To be more precise, they were military nationalist states.

'never advanced beyone tribalistic prejudices'... how deliciously Eurocentric!

How deliciously fallacious.

Now THAT is a non sequiter.

EDIT-

BTW, You're right about the free rider dilemma... don't know what I was thinking... :oops:

You are advocating private police, yes?

Problems here:
1) Police are privately funded, and thus will protect only the rich.

Unsupported assertion.

Perhaps this is accetable to you. If the poor do get a police force, it will be inferior to that of the rich.

Unsupported assertion.

So... they're publically funded then? Explain

No, you need to explain why the police forces would necessarily be disparate in terms of efficacy. Where's the link?

2) Private police are responsible and accoutable only for and to those that employ them. They those have no moral or contractual obligation to anyone else. In essence, these police will nessecarily be a private army.

Non sequitur strawman. The private police would be much like today's private security firms. You've heard of Brinks right?

Non sequiter on your part, actually.

Actually, no.

There is clearly a difference between police, who exercise the law, and security firms, who excersice the will of private parties within the law.

I was giving an illustration on a point. That point being: the private security firms do actually enforce the law, in a way.

Similarly, the private police agencies would actually enforce the laws so written by private legal firms and agreed to by contracts by the people so desiring.

Without police, you have BRinks in armoured cars, armed to the hilt and legitimately able to shoot anyone they want.

Non sequitur and begged question. Where's the link that says there would be no police and no law?


3) In a situation where one army is clearly larger than the other, it will be in the best intrest of the 'owner' of the larger army to attack the smaller:

Non sequitur

[snip Hobbesian lunacy]

Do you have anything besides the Hobbesian myth, so clearly demonstrated false in reality?

Expalin.

Are we in direct physical conflict?

No.

Am I in direct physical conflict with, say, people in Canada?

No.

Did I need a government to make me not do so?

No.

Hobbes is thus refuted.

Also, is there a government preventing the US government from deciding to invade Canada?

No.

Hobbes is thus refuted.

And, for that matter, Sierra Leone is a real world example of EXACTLY this sort of thing happening- Sierra Leone being a capitalist nation under Britain until the late 60s, then slowly collapsing into anarchy.

Chaos. Not anarchy.



So you say that humanity is innately evil?

No, of course you don't.

So why do you buy into the Hobbesian myth?

I am saying that some humans are innately evil,

Then you would have to prove determinism or some other such fatalistic crap.

and many are easily led. Thus in order to protect myself I must prepare for the worst- anything else is pure foolishness.

si vis pacem, para bellum, eh?


Similar to the way such things are handled now.


I thought you didn't like the way such things are handled now?

Do you understand metaphorical similarities?

A case could be made that it's not really anarchy, given the tribal leaders.

That's such a convenient argument for anarchists and communists- USSR wasn't REALLY communism.

No, actually it's a proper argument for this case.

Moreover, it IS an absence of state,

Not really, in the sense of a government, which is the tribal leaders, who made the laws.

which is what you seem to have a problem with anyways. Even in Saga Iceland there were family chiefs.

But they didn't simply fiat the law.


Uganda, Rwanda, etc.

They weren't "really" socialist. To be more precise, they were military nationalist states.[/quote]

IOW: socialist.

'never advanced beyone tribalistic prejudices'... how deliciously Eurocentric!

How deliciously fallacious.

Now THAT is a non sequiter.

No. You committed a poisoning the well fallacy.

So... they're publically funded then? Explain

No, you need to explain why the police forces would necessarily be disparate in terms of efficacy. Where's the link?

The link is obvious. Clearly wealth impacts the quality of all services in a pure capitalist system. Claiming anything else is foolishness.


I was giving an illustration on a point. That point being: the private security firms do actually enforce the law, in a way.

Similarly, the private police agencies would actually enforce the laws so written by private legal firms and agreed to by contracts by the people so desiring.

Great. However, these laws written by private legal firms are not going to be applicable to everyone: specifically, those that don't agree with said terms. Thus, these police agencies will be enforcing laws that are not explicitly agreed upon onto whosoever disagrees. How is this different that your depiction of the state?

Non sequitur and begged question. Where's the link that says there would be no police and no law?
Actually I think I already discussed this: law is the product of legislation. In your 'system', legislation is not binding nor universal, thus law is subject to the opinions of the individual. Police have no legitimate force, since there is no impetus to follow the wills of your fellow, nor moral grounds to follow said wills. Police, in my opinion, are the executors of the will of the legislative body. In an anarchist state such as the one you are describing, there is no legislative body which can legitimately enforce its will on others; thus there are no true 'police'.


Expalin.

Are we in direct physical conflict?

No.

Am I in direct physical conflict with, say, people in Canada?

No.

Did I need a government to make me not do so?

No.

Hobbes is thus refuted.

Also, is there a government preventing the US government from deciding to invade Canada?

No.

Hobbes is thus refuted.

I disagree on historical as well as theoretical grounds. Your potnetial conflict with Canada is negated on a theoretical grounds as, according to Hobbes, you have already given up your right to physical force. Moreover, there are governments that prevent the US from attacking Canada, for political reasons. It is not currently in the best interest of America to invade us; however, historically, when it has been in your interest, the US HAS invaded Canada, twice directly, once by proxy. I don't think your refutation holds up. I think that its also very ironic that ALL your examples take place under a state.


And, for that matter, Sierra Leone is a real world example of EXACTLY this sort of thing happening- Sierra Leone being a capitalist nation under Britain until the late 60s, then slowly collapsing into anarchy.

Chaos. Not anarchy.

Quibble. Technically anarchy is correct, however (an=none, archy=rule, anarchy=rule of none).




si vis pacem, para bellum, eh?

Obviously. This can have many manifestations, but the point holds true, and is reflected in the foreign policies of nearly every nation.


Similar to the way such things are handled now.


I thought you didn't like the way such things are handled now?

Do you understand metaphorical similarities?[/quote]

Maybe if you'd give me more than one line answers I'd be able to properly respond?



Not really, in the sense of a government, which is the tribal leaders, who made the laws.


OK, but then Iceland isn't a valid example, since there were family leaders who made laws.
which is what you seem to have a problem with anyways. Even in Saga Iceland there were family chiefs.

But they didn't simply fiat the law.

Judging from my research, they did. However, societal norms ensured that conflicts over legislation were generally resolved within the family long before they were brought before the 'Lawspeaker' (a legal expert whose duty it was to make his knowledge available publicly and to all comers). There were outlaws, though banditry and the like were severely frowned upon. Clearly, however, legislative powers DID exist, and applied to those who agreed with them or otherwise.

No. You committed a poisoning the well fallacy.

you're probably right. However, if you dismiss nationstates, religion, culture and even tribalism as acceptable means of governance, you're not left with much. Indeed, it seems you're dictating a single path to good society; ironic in the sense you're an anarchist.

So... they're publically funded then? Explain

No, you need to explain why the police forces would necessarily be disparate in terms of efficacy. Where's the link?

The link is obvious.

No, it's not.

Clearly wealth impacts the quality of all services in a pure capitalist system. Claiming anything else is foolishness.

Appeal to mysticism. Rejected.



I was giving an illustration on a point. That point being: the private security firms do actually enforce the law, in a way.

Similarly, the private police agencies would actually enforce the laws so written by private legal firms and agreed to by contracts by the people so desiring.

Great. However, these laws written by private legal firms are not going to be applicable to everyone: specifically, those that don't agree with said terms. Thus, these police agencies will be enforcing laws that are not explicitly agreed upon onto whosoever disagrees.

Will they?

How is this different that your depiction of the state?

Where's the monopoly?

Also, have you heard of agreements between, say, private security firms to deal with people who are under different security firms and laws who break the law in the area of the first firm? Of course, you haven't thought of that, have you? That would be way too much like effort.

Have you even done ANY research into this? It really sounds like you're just spewing the statist crap that you've been brainwashed into believing. Seriously.


Non sequitur and begged question. Where's the link that says there would be no police and no law?

Actually I think I already discussed this: law is the product of legislation.

How is that necessarily so? Why can't laws be drafted by private legal firms who sell it to private insurance or security or defense firms who in turn sell their services to consumers?

In your 'system', legislation is not binding nor universal, thus law is subject to the opinions of the individual.

Utter strawman.

[snip]


Expalin.

Are we in direct physical conflict?

No.

Am I in direct physical conflict with, say, people in Canada?

No.

Did I need a government to make me not do so?

No.

Hobbes is thus refuted.

Also, is there a government preventing the US government from deciding to invade Canada?

No.

Hobbes is thus refuted.

I disagree on historical as well as theoretical grounds.

Are we in direct physical conflict?

No.

Did I need a government to make that happen?

No.

What about that do you disagree with?

Are the US and Canada in direct physical conflict?

No.

Is there some government preventing them from doing so?

No.

What about THAT do you disagree with?

Your potnetial conflict with Canada is negated on a theoretical grounds as, according to Hobbes, you have already given up your right to physical force.

Have I? I was speaking of conflict with you, i.e. simply going out and taking all your things.

Moreover, there are governments that prevent the US from attacking Canada, for political reasons.

Name them. Now.

It is not currently in the best interest of America to invade us; however, historically, when it has been in your interest, the US HAS invaded Canada, twice directly, once by proxy.

Not when Canada was a sovereign nation, but rather when Canada was part of the British Empire and we were at war with Britain! So you don't seem to have a leg to stand on.

I don't think your refutation holds up. I think that its also very ironic that ALL your examples take place under a state.

I don't. I find it perfect that if Hobbes is correct, every nation should be at war with each other since there is no overall government. But we don't see that, do we?

Explain how it is that every nation isn't at war with each other if Hobbes is correct. Now.

You can't.

Hobbes is therefore killed by reality.


And, for that matter, Sierra Leone is a real world example of EXACTLY this sort of thing happening- Sierra Leone being a capitalist nation under Britain until the late 60s, then slowly collapsing into anarchy.

Chaos. Not anarchy.

Quibble. Technically anarchy is correct, however (an=none, archy=rule, anarchy=rule of none).

No, technically chaos is correct, since there was a breakdown in society, laws, etc.




si vis pacem, para bellum, eh?

Obviously. This can have many manifestations, but the point holds true, and is reflected in the foreign policies of nearly every nation.

Don't you think that might be the cause of the problems? Haven't you ever analyzed that?


Similar to the way such things are handled now.


I thought you didn't like the way such things are handled now?

Do you understand metaphorical similarities?[/quote]

Maybe if you'd give me more than one line answers I'd be able to properly respond?

Maybe if you'd ask for an expounding.



Not really, in the sense of a government, which is the tribal leaders, who made the laws.


OK, but then Iceland isn't a valid example, since there were family leaders who made laws.

Not in the equivacatory sense that you would like.

which is what you seem to have a problem with anyways. Even in Saga Iceland there were family chiefs.

But they didn't simply fiat the law.

Judging from my research, they did.

Judging from mine, they didn't. Law was codified and not simply the whim of the tribal leaders.

However, societal norms ensured that conflicts over legislation were generally resolved within the family long before they were brought before the 'Lawspeaker' (a legal expert whose duty it was to make his knowledge available publicly and to all comers). There were outlaws, though banditry and the like were severely frowned upon. Clearly, however, legislative powers DID exist, and applied to those who agreed with them or otherwise.

Yet there was no government.


No. You committed a poisoning the well fallacy.

you're probably right. However, if you dismiss nationstates, religion, culture and even tribalism as acceptable means of governance, you're not left with much. Indeed, it seems you're dictating a single path to good society; ironic in the sense you're an anarchist.

How so?