Prohobo:1. You state, "Anarchy will completely protect the rights of the minority..." - Question: WHO will COMPLETELY protect those rights?
If I want to smoke pot, there won't be a government to stop me. If I want to pay for sex, there will not be a government to stop me. If I want to buy a product from someone who is not licensed, there will not be a government to stop me. If I do not want to go to war, there will not be a government to extort from me to make me pay for it. The only thing a government can do, is take away our freedom. In other words the government is the main one taking away our rights. I assume you would agree that without government, criminal activity would drop substantially, as such we would not have to worry about theft and murder as much either. As to dispute resolution, the market would provide for that just like it provides grocery stores today. There would be private investigators, arbitrators, and security agencies.
Prohobo:2. You sate, " In anarchy, people will not be subject to social group values." Question: How does Anarchy somehow erase the moral values of both the individuals and society?
It does not erase the moral values of individuals. It just restricts the majority from imposing their will on the minority, because there is no monopoly on the use of force. Would you agree that child abuse occurs today, even with the government? Would you agree that even in countries where abortion is illegal, that abortion still occurs? Would you agree that dog fighting still goes on, even though it is illegal?
Prohobo:Please let me transport out of this.....
No way! I will keep trying to suck you in!
At most, 5% of the population would need to stop complying to bring down the government.
E. R. Olovetto: By the way, here is your local pedophile's right advocate everyone. DUCWIDT Bro? It is perfectly fine under libertarian law to go around preaching socialism or that child rape is acceptable. People might find out who you are and publicly shame you though.
By the way, here is your local pedophile's right advocate everyone.
DUCWIDT Bro? It is perfectly fine under libertarian law to go around preaching socialism or that child rape is acceptable. People might find out who you are and publicly shame you though.
I deleted the picture you posted of Spidey with ill intent. Be cool, okay?
Human Action Comics Issues 1-6
Spideynw:Because no one really does anything about it now.
Maxliberty: Spideynw:Because no one really does anything about it now. This is just factually false. People get put in prison, mobs murder child molesters, all kinds of things happen.
I am just saying there are probably a lot of child abusers that go unpunished now, even with a government.
Spideynw: E. R. Olovetto:You didn't respond for 2 1/2 weeks. It is mentally draining to address all of the fallacies being presented to me. I took a break.
E. R. Olovetto:You didn't respond for 2 1/2 weeks.
It is mentally draining to address all of the fallacies being presented to me. I took a break.
The only valid ones you have pointed out (maybe) are from when I was mocking your own position. I really don't have much new to say to you. The quotebomb is annoying and I have already refuted everything you are saying. You are deluded and don't seem to care about what the implications are should we decide to adhere to the NAP. You can not own children in the way that you think. They are not your slaves or material objects. Your conception of rights is straight out of the 18th century and nobody here seems to agree with you. Nobody will pay more for security to defend child molesters. Some will jump at the chance to enslave (imprison) you though.
"Again, it has nothing to do with how you feel about how I treat my child. Otherwise, using your logic, if I do not like how you treat your pet or property, I can homestead it and bring charges against you."
I already made it clear that pets and rocks are not potential moral agents. Rape your sheep all you like. You won't "win" this argument by misrepresenting my position. I only care to waste so much time repeating myself.
I wonder what your real bone of contention is. Would you tell your children, "I could rape or murder you since you are my property. This is what my parental rights are."? Seriously, you need to teach them right and wrong, right? I find it somewhat unsavory (unethical) if you make your children go to church or feed them McDonalds several times per week. This is not criminal (immoral) however.
"They are completely implausible. You envision a world of mob rule. There is no reason to believe such would be the case."
Isn't it "mob rule" if most people agree that killing and stealing is wrong "using your logic"? All we're talking about here is children, especially older ones, who are molested being discovered. It is completely ridiculous for you to suggest that molestation can't be found out or proven.
Maybe it is true that a government will fall with only (the right) 5% dissenting. (I think it is pointless to try to put a percent though). Yes, most people really don't care about how and why things work. They could care less about the science of cathode ray tubes as long as they can sit on their asses and watch TV.
Without a consistent approach though, why would we want to actually live in anarchy? This is why I've pointed out repeatedly that you are not a libertarian in the sense that you are advocating anything nearly consistent with libertarian law. You are a Libertarian in the same way as confused democracy and Ron Paul worshipers are. When it comes down to it, all that matters is how people live their lives. Some time after the mythology of statism is out of practice, the word "libertarian" will go with it.
"The NAP is not the same as an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth."
You supposedly want to live in anarchy, but refuse to think critically about how disputes ought to be resolved once we get there. Not only must people stop obeying an unjust government, but we must also determine what actions are criminal and what punishment is just. I've already pointed out two good papers on proportionality by Block and Kinsella, but here is another.
The non-agression principle is an axiomatic proposition. Walk down the street and punch the first person you see in the face as hard as you can. They might not retaliate, but they probably won't thank you. I might write a poem about your actions being wrong, but there is no need to prove it is wrong even if it were possible, only that you punched someone in the face.
There are bounds to what a judge can objectively determine in regards to an allowable maximum punishment. That is still in regards to the aprioristic legal theory, and not what will happen put into practice, which may or may not be called "libertarian law". The 1 (or 2) teeth for a tooth aspect is an example of this boundary.
For cases involving theft or destruction of homogeneous goods, say an ounce of gold, it is easy to say that, in order to "make the victim whole again", the perpetrator must return an ounce of gold to the victim. If their was malicious intent, there was criminal action, and the thief or vandal then owes the second tooth or ounce of gold. By way of his actions, the criminal can't coherently object to the same thing being done to him as he had done to the victim. So, those are the basics of the first aspect, then it becomes more arbitrary when we have to guess how and how hard you punched someone or how many times you raped a child. Those crimes can't literally be undone in any way, so arbitration will gravitate toward monetary restitution.
The alternatives are state monopoly or whatever completely arbitrary system someone like you would cook up. Very few people would pay more for security in order to protect pedophiles. People can reach intersubjective agreement easily on child molestation. Hiring a PDA is not hiring a mercenary to fight to the death for you no matter what. Basic terms of PDA contracts would inform customers what guidelines are required of evidence brought against the customer before they are allowed to be questioned or their home invaded. With the exclusion of actual victimless crimes like drug use or prostitution, profit from the labor of molesters will become a greater concern of PDAs. The average person thinks molestation is terrible and will be happy to pay less, knowing that molesters are punished.
Anyhow, you've bored me half to death. There's no shame in admitting you are wrong.
Why does many a man write? Because he does not possess enough character not to write. ---Karl Kraus.
Lilburne: E. R. Olovetto: By the way, here is your local pedophile's right advocate everyone. DUCWIDT Bro? It is perfectly fine under libertarian law to go around preaching socialism or that child rape is acceptable. People might find out who you are and publicly shame you though. I deleted the picture you posted of Spidey with ill intent. Be cool, okay?
But trainwrecking is fun. I mean, I wasn't going to ask my buddy's girlfriend, who works in the NSA, if the FBI would do anything with me having a picture, name and city of a possible child molester. I just wanted to give him a taste of the potential of extrajuridical action.
Let me just start with a caveat that I am going to use "abuse" instead of "molestation". I would assume that you would think beating your child or starving your child are both just as immoral as molesting your child. As such, I think it is a better word to use for our purposes, since "molestation" is just as vague of a term as "abuse".
E. R. Olovetto:You can not own children in the way that you think.
Who has a better claim to my children, you or me?
E. R. Olovetto:Your conception of rights is straight out of the 18th century and nobody here seems to agree with you.
You think truth is dependent on how many people understand it?
E. R. Olovetto:Nobody will pay more for security to defend child molesters.
Could you please clarify what you are saying here?
E. R. Olovetto:I already made it clear that pets and rocks are not potential moral agents.
So, let's assume, for arguments sake, common law says that children are potential moral agents and that abuse is forfeiture of parental rights (I assume this is your claim). First of all, what is "abuse"? Second of all, who gets to "homestead" the child? The first person to see him or her? And if so, in your world, are people going to be going around, seeing if they can find someone abusing his or her child, and then "homesteading" the child? And in this world of yours, there will be no agencies willing to legally defend someone accused of child abuse? Not only that, but the parent of said child is just going to roll over and let someone take his or her child?
E. R. Olovetto:Isn't it "mob rule" if most people agree that killing and stealing is wrong "using your logic"?
No. If I steal something, and I am caught, the mob has nothing to do with it. The victim has the choice to either prosecute me, do nothing, or take matters into his own hands. If he takes legal action, we would go to an arbitrator, agreed to by both parties. When I say "mob rule", I mean there is some organization that is enforcing the dictates of one group on another group, even though the one group has not standing to enforce their dictates on the other group. Just because you do not like how I treat my child does not give you any claim to my child, the same as if you do not like how I treat my dog does not give you any claim to my dog. You have no standing for a redress of grievances against your self.
E. R. Olovetto:All we're talking about here is children, especially older ones, who are molested being discovered.
I am talking about babies/small children, up until the point where they are able to fend for themselves.
E. R. Olovetto:Without a consistent approach though, why would we want to actually live in anarchy?
You don't think ending mass murder, slavery, and extortion as soon as possible is desirable? Do you think society would devolve into chaos if that all stopped tomorrow?
:Yawn:
Rethink what you're saying please, and I might respond.
Ludwig von Mises Institute | 518 West Magnolia Avenue | Auburn, Alabama 36832-4528
Phone: 334.321.2100 · Fax: 334.321.2119
contact@Mises.org | webmaster | AOL-IM MainMises
Mises.org sitemap