Hi, I'm new.

Reply

liberty student replied on Wed, Apr 29 2009 1:49 PM

rated by 0 users

Juan:

The people who advocate competing law are not advocating individual rights

Who did this?

Juan:

Whereas some of the locals are certainly not.

Who?  Based on what?

Reply

Juan replied on Wed, Apr 29 2009 2:26 PM

rated by 0 users

Knight:

Juan:

Laissez-faire can only exist when natural law (what you[Stephanie] seem to be calling "law of human interaction") is respected.

Not everyone will. This is simply a fact.

Knight:

Juan:

The people who advocate competing law are not advocating individual rights, although they may sometimes claim they are (not very convincingly, tho).

I am unconvinced by your blatant assertion.

Knight:

nirgrahamUK:

I think stephanie is pretty close to a natural law anarcho capitalist,

No. She's got stuck on needing daddy government.

Reply

JackCuyler replied on Wed, Apr 29 2009 2:44 PM

rated by 0 users

Stephanie Bond:

A monopoly on the use of retaliatory force (i.e., coercion in retaliation against its initiation) does not have to operate the same way as a coercive monopoly currently operates. That is why the government has to be funded voluntarily and cannot have the right to tax the people to pay for itself. The sole purpose of government is to protect individual rights from the initiatioin of force. Therfore it cannot have the right to initiate force for any reason.

The question is not whether the government has the right to initiate force, clearly it does not.  The question is, without competition, what is preventing said initiation of force regardless?  The thief does not have a right to his victim's property, but somehow that doesn't matter to the thief.  What stops the government from likewise becoming criminal?

Further, the use of retaliatory force to protect one's person or property is an individual right.  Enforcing a monopoloy on the use of retaliatory force is therefore a violation of individual rights.

Reply

Juan replied on Wed, Apr 29 2009 2:56 PM

rated by 0 users

liberty student:

Juan:

The people who advocate competing law are not advocating individual rights

Who did this?

Juan:

Whereas some of the locals are certainly not.

Who? Based on what?

Reply

liberty student replied on Wed, Apr 29 2009 3:10 PM

rated by 0 users

Juan:

Maybe re-reading the latest thread about somalia would give you some answers.

You made the statement, the onus is on you to back up your claim.  Back it up.

Reply

Knight_of_BAAWA replied on Wed, Apr 29 2009 4:46 PM

rated by 0 users

Juan:

Laissez-faire can only exist when natural law (what you[Stephanie] seem to be calling "law of human interaction") is respected.

Knight:

Not everyone will. This is simply a fact.

Juan:

Yes, I never said otherwise. So I'm not sure you're refuting my point ?

And my description of her position is quite accurate, Juan. She wants a monopolist. Big daddy government. There's no way to avoid it.

Reply

whipitgood replied on Wed, Apr 29 2009 11:39 PM

rated by 0 users

I do not claim to have the right nor the desire to initate force, and I hold to the NAP. On the other hand, I want to defend myself, and reject being part of your monopoly on the defense of people against whom force is being initiated. I decide to start a defense company, one that works on voluntary payment, and only defends people from force after it has been initiated. You claim the right for your government to have a monopoly over this, and I have just attempted to break this monopoly by starting a competing 'government' (if you must call it that.)

Are you going to try and stop me?

If the awnser is yes, then you will have violated the NAP. If it is no, then you give up your monopoly and are an anarchist.

Is this not the same situation that Rand was in? She refused to admit that she could only have it one way or the other, and pretended to have both.

Reply

Stephanie Bond replied on Thu, Apr 30 2009 8:39 AM

rated by 0 users

whipitgood:

I do not claim to have the right nor the desire to initate force, and I hold to the NAP. On the other hand, I want to defend myself, and reject being part of your monopoly on the defense of people against whom force is being initiated. I decide to start a defense company, one that works on voluntary payment, and only defends people from force after it has been initiated. You claim the right for your government to have a monopoly over this, and I have just attempted to break this monopoly by starting a competing 'government' (if you must call it that.)

Are you going to try and stop me?

If the awnser is yes, then you will have violated the NAP. If it is no, then you give up your monopoly and are an anarchist.

Is this not the same situation that Rand was in? She refused to admit that she could only have it one way or the other, and pretended to have both.

 

It's not up to the government to "try and stop you." It is up to individual plaintiffs to take issue with what you are doing and to bring a lawsuit against you.

See you in court.

Reply

Spideynw replied on Thu, Apr 30 2009 8:58 AM

rated by 0 users

Stephanie Bond:

It's not up to the government to "try and stop you." It is up to individual plaintiffs to take issue with what you are doing and to bring a lawsuit against you.

It used to be that the government never initiated a lawsuit.  It used to be that the government was only activated when a citizen brought a case against another citizen...

Reply

whipitgood replied on Thu, Apr 30 2009 9:16 AM

rated by 0 users

Stephanie Bond:

It is up to individual plaintiffs to take issue with what you are doing and to bring a lawsuit against you.

 So you're an anarcho-capitalist? I mean, it seems that your 'government' is basically a business. Why would a non-government actor file suit to protect your 'government's' monopoly if I could offer lower prices and better service? Better prices at Wal-Mart? Fuck that, I'm suing them for damages to Target.

Anyways, if you understand economics then you understand that without a monopoly that will be enforced through the initiation of aggression, then you WILL have market competition. Probably lots of it. So, either stop me from competing by force, or stop denying that you're an anarcho-capitalist

Reply

liberty student replied on Thu, Apr 30 2009 10:17 AM

rated by 0 users

Stephanie, can you answer how the government will protect rights without coercion?

Reply

Knight_of_BAAWA replied on Thu, Apr 30 2009 12:56 PM

rated by 0 users

Stephanie Bond:

It's not up to the government to "try and stop you." It is up to individual plaintiffs to take issue with what you are doing and to bring a lawsuit against you.

See you in court.

Reply

wilderness replied on Thu, Apr 30 2009 3:28 PM

rated by 0 users

Stephanie Bond:

It's not up to the government to "try and stop you." It is up to individual plaintiffs to take issue with what you are doing and to bring a lawsuit against you.

See you in court.

   It's so easy to see.  It's right there in front of our faces.  Your government already expanded.  It went from a protectorate of rights to a monopoly on the judicial system for you said, "It is up to individual plaintiffs... See you in court."  You already determined that the judicial system works by the force of gunpoint handled by this monopolistic government.  I mean what if the "individual plaintiffs" don't follow this coercive government you speak of?  This government of yours grows by the day and it hasn't even left the planning stage in this forum.

Reply

JackCuyler replied on Thu, Apr 30 2009 11:38 PM

rated by 0 users

Stephanie Bond:

It's not up to the government to "try and stop you." It is up to individual plaintiffs to take issue with what you are doing and to bring a lawsuit against you.

See you in court.

The problem here is that a monopoly inherently violates the NAP. 

Jason steals Kelly's necklace.  Kelly hires John to retrieve the necklace, which he does.  Jason brings suit against John in the government court.  We'll assume for this example that the necklace is demonstrably Kelly's property, and that Jason's criminal act was caught on camera.

The govenment is then faced with the choice of violating the NAP and ruling in favor of Jason, or giving up its monpoly and ruling against Jason.

Reply

William replied on Sat, May 2 2009 4:05 AM

rated by 0 users

I'm sorry, but when I see a 230+ post I figure there is probably  some significant discussion.  Would it be better at this point, to avoid a convoluted thread, to start a new thread with all major parties starting with a post summing up their positions (probably starting with the OP)?

Reply

Stephanie Bond replied on Sun, May 3 2009 6:04 PM

rated by 0 users

Dondoolee:

I'm sorry, but when I see a 230+ post I figure there is probably  some significant discussion.  Would it be better at this point, to avoid a convoluted thread, to start a new thread with all major parties starting with a post summing up their positions (probably starting with the OP)?

The participants don't seem to have a problem. Anyone can pick up the gist just by reading the last page or two worth of posts, I reckon.

Reply

Stephanie Bond replied on Sun, May 3 2009 6:16 PM

rated by 0 users

JackCuyler:

1. The problem here is that a monopoly inherently violates the NAP. 

2. Jason steals Kelly's necklace.  Kelly hires John to retrieve the necklace, which he does.  Jason brings suit against John in the government court.  We'll assume for this example that the necklace is demonstrably Kelly's property, and that Jason's criminal act was caught on camera.

3. The govenment is then faced with the choice of violating the NAP and ruling in favor of Jason, or giving up its monpoly and ruling against Jason.

1. I don't see how.

2. Okay. The only unbelievable part is that Jason would bring a lawsuit in the first place or that it would get to the stage of a trial. Sounds like the kind of thing that would get settled before trial. Jason obviously is unaware that he has been caught on tape.

3. But if somehow it got to trial, I can't see a judge ruling in Jason's favor.  However, let's say that in retrieving the necklace, John caused damage to Jason's property. That could be factored in, as could the damage Jason did to Kelly's property (if any - and I mean by that wrecking a door or window, for example in order to gain access.)

What you are missing here is that taking action to retrieve one's property could result in you losing a lawsuit if you target the wrong person and they decide to sue. People probably will try to sort problems out themselves rather than go to court, and good on them if they can. The court will only deal with cases brought to it, and take into account all the evidence put before it. The problem with trying to sort complicated matters out on your own is that you could be in error and end up losing in court.

In this scenario, what was Jason's reason for bringing the lawsuit, when he knew he was in the wrong? It costs money to bring a lawsuit, after all. How can he justify suing John for retrieving Kelly's property? Did Kelly owe Jason money, and he took the necklace to settle the debt? That's about the only way Jason would have a legitimate excuse for his actions (not that he'd win with that excuse but it would make some sense of the events.)

Reply

Stephanie Bond replied on Sun, May 3 2009 6:31 PM

rated by 0 users

wilderness:

   It's so easy to see.  It's right there in front of our faces.  Your government already expanded.  It went from a protectorate of rights to a monopoly on the judicial system for you said, "It is up to individual plaintiffs... See you in court."  You already determined that the judicial system works by the force of gunpoint handled by this monopolistic government.  I mean what if the "individual plaintiffs" don't follow this coercive government you speak of?  This government of yours grows by the day and it hasn't even left the planning stage in this forum.

It's a monopoly on the use of retaliatory force. There is no monopoly on arbitration, dispute resolution and mediation services. Going to court should be seen as the last resort, and for corporations it likely would be written into the contract - the method of resolving issues will take the following steps, and those steps would be set out.

The use of retaliatory force and enforcement of court orders & judgments is the proper job of government. The judicial system doesn't work at the point of a gun. People aren't forced to come to court to settle their differences. They can try and are encouraged to try to resolve their issues without going to trial.

Have you any idea how court works now? Well, if you're in the States, it would be different from Canada.

The use of coercion in the form of retaliatory force requires objective criteria. It is not the realm for subjective wishes whim and desires, at least not on the part of the judges or juries or indeed police or armies.

The realm of the subjective is the economic realm, where people buy and sell according to all kinds of criteria, a mix of subjective wishes and objective values.

When people are able to trade by voluntary agreement to mutual benefit, each party upholding his part of the bargain, there are no disputes. The only conceivable role of government is as a registry - for all kinds of property title, property transfer and records of births, deaths, marriages, wills - whatever people wish to have recorded in an objectively verifiable way.

I'll say it again - the problem with government throughout the ages can be diagnosed as a problem of the kind of law that's been set up, or to put it another way, the kind of social conduct that has been legislated against. Because laws have gone beyond the prohibition of the initiation of force into a paternalistic role, dictating all kinds of behaviors that are and are not acceptable (which are examples of subjective rather than objective laws), the system has become corrupted. Whoever gains control of the government shoves his/her values down everyone's throats.

A government that is given the role of protecting individual rights and which is permitted to only use retaliatory force according to objective criteria, is prevented by law from enacting subjective legislation and prevented by law from employing the tax method to fund itself.

Reply

Knight_of_BAAWA replied on Sun, May 3 2009 6:33 PM

rated by 0 users

Stephanie Bond:

1. I don't see how.

Is that clear now?

Reply

nirgrahamUK replied on Sun, May 3 2009 6:35 PM

rated by 0 users

so why do you believe in special  privileges so much? and why are you against competition in the marketplace for defence/legitimate-force services?

you are a violence socialist as far as i can make out. i started out feeling fairly charitable to you, but the more you post........

Reply

Stephanie Bond replied on Sun, May 3 2009 6:35 PM

rated by 0 users

liberty student:

Stephanie, can you answer how the government will protect rights without coercion?

It can't.

Do you understand the difference between the initiation of force and the use of force in retaliation (i.e. self-defense)?

Force is coercion. There are two basic kinds of coercion/force - initiatory and retaliatory. One is bad and one is good.

Delegating one's right of self-defense to government means placing the use of retaliatory force in the control of an institution charged with investigating allegations of wrongdoing, hearing evidence from all interested parties, and making as informed a decision as possible as to who is in the wrong. Then it means deciding on the proper punishment/restitution. To enforce that ruling requires the use of coercion.

Reply

Knight_of_BAAWA replied on Sun, May 3 2009 6:36 PM

rated by 0 users

Stephanie Bond:

A government that is given the role of protecting individual rights and which is permitted to only use retaliatory force according to objective criteria, is prevented by law from enacting subjective legislation and prevented by law from employing the tax method to fund itself.

Reply

Thedesolateone replied on Sun, May 3 2009 6:37 PM

rated by 0 users

Stephanie Bond:

JackCuyler:

1. The problem here is that a monopoly inherently violates the NAP.

1. I don't see how.

Monopoly = single legal provider of some good

This implies:
- If you wish to exchange with another producer of the same good, you are not allowed - you are prevented from doing this by force

Reply

Knight_of_BAAWA replied on Sun, May 3 2009 6:38 PM

rated by 0 users

Stephanie Bond:

Delegating one's right of self-defense to government

And what's so objective about this collective entity (made up of individuals) that renders the individuals as subjective and thus unable to render retaliatory force properly?

Reply

Stephanie Bond replied on Sun, May 3 2009 7:17 PM

rated by 0 users

JackCuyler:

The question is not whether the government has the right to initiate force, clearly it does not.  The question is, without competition, what is preventing said initiation of force regardless?  The thief does not have a right to his victim's property, but somehow that doesn't matter to the thief.  What stops the government from likewise becoming criminal?

Further, the use of retaliatory force to protect one's person or property is an individual right.  Enforcing a monopoloy on the use of retaliatory force is therefore a violation of individual rights.

How would competition help?

If we can ever get rid of the current thieving system of government, and actually take proper control over our lives for once in our species' history, then what will stop the government from becoming criminal is the law.

I honestly don't see how the government can enforce its monopoly or even why it would bother. If people want to try to resolve their disputes themselves, they are free to do so. They just need to be aware that if they rush to judgment and target the wrong person, that  wrongly accused person would have a strong case in court.

The government is not going to run round and make sure people are coming to it for assistance with their disputes. It just won't happen. What WILL happen is that when someone takes a vigilante action, and is wrong in their choice of target, the new victim will be within his rights to bring a lawsuit.

The right of self-defense is in an individual right. In a proper civilization, people would delegate the right to the government as being the most efficient way to obtain redress for wrongs done them. Delegation of the right of self-defense does not leave the individual without recourse in the event of an attack against him.

Reply

nirgrahamUK replied on Sun, May 3 2009 7:19 PM

rated by 0 users

Stephanie Bond:

I honestly don't see how the government can enforce its monopoly or even why it would bother.

the government really has a monopoly that it does not have? my head hurts.

Reply

Stephanie Bond replied on Sun, May 3 2009 7:24 PM

rated by 0 users

Knight_of_BAAWA:

Stephanie Bond:

Delegating one's right of self-defense to government

I and others do not so delegate. What will the monopolist do to us to maintain the monopoly?

And what's so objective about this collective entity (made up of individuals) that renders the individuals as subjective and thus unable to render retaliatory force properly?

if you do not wish to delegate your right of self-defense to the government, why would you choose to live in this country? I reckon you wouldn't.

Can you clarify your second question? I think you are asking what makes the judges objective, when they're individuals too, and what makes the parties in a litigation subjective? Behaving objectively - i.e., not allowing subjective bias to enter into their decision-making, cannot be achieved without objective laws in the first place. The individuals who are involved in the dispute are understandably subjective - they each think they are right.

According to what laws are you rendering retaliatory force?

Reply

Stephanie Bond replied on Sun, May 3 2009 7:25 PM

rated by 0 users

nirgrahamUK:

Stephanie Bond:

I honestly don't see how the government can enforce its monopoly or even why it would bother.

the government really has a monopoly that it does not have? my head hurts.

It has a monopoly on sending people to jail. But it cannot force peopel to bring their disputes to it (to court).

Reply

nirgrahamUK replied on Sun, May 3 2009 7:26 PM

rated by 0 users

why cant my company send people to jail?

Reply

liberty student replied on Sun, May 3 2009 7:27 PM

rated by 0 users

Stephanie Bond:

liberty student:

Stephanie, can you answer how the government will protect rights without coercion?

It can't.

Ok, thanks.  You kept saying that was it's role and I was concerned that you weren't spotting the obvious flawed premise.

Stephanie Bond:

Delegating one's right of self-defense to government means placing the use of retaliatory force in the control of an institution

This contradicts your previous answer.  Retaliatory force is not protecting rights, in fact, as you have written, retaliatory force is punishment or restitution.  It has nothing to do with protecting rights from the initial violation. It is ex post facto.

There is absolutely no reason to give up the right of self-defense, because it is impossible for the government to stop coercion from being initiated, without using coercion itself to control every person.

That is, unless your first answer was wrong, in which case, I will have to ask again, how can the government prevent coercion without initiating coercion *first*?

Reply

Knight_of_BAAWA replied on Sun, May 3 2009 7:27 PM

rated by 0 users

Stephanie Bond:

if you do not wish to delegate your right of self-defense to the government, why would you choose to live in this country?

See the problem with your stance?

Stephanie Bond:

Can you clarify your second question?

Roy Childs:

You imply, without stating it, that if an individual decides to use retaliation, that that decision is somehow subjective and arbitrary. Rather, supposedly the individual should leave such a decision up to government which is – what? Collective and therefore objective? This is illogical. If man is not capable of making these decisions, then he isn't capable of making them, and no government made up of men is capable of making them, either. By what epistemological criterion is an individual's action classified as "arbitrary," while that of a group of individuals is somehow "objective"?

Reply

Knight_of_BAAWA replied on Sun, May 3 2009 7:29 PM

rated by 0 users

Stephanie Bond:

How would competition help?

Reply

Stephanie Bond replied on Sun, May 3 2009 7:30 PM

rated by 0 users

Knight_of_BAAWA:

Stephanie Bond:

A government that is given the role of protecting individual rights and which is permitted to only use retaliatory force according to objective criteria, is prevented by law from enacting subjective legislation and prevented by law from employing the tax method to fund itself.

Yet it's a monopoly. How is it going to maintain that monopoly? How will it be funded? Voluntary payment? What's voluntary about it when it has the monopoly?

 

What is voluntary is that people don't have to pay for something they don't use. If they are able to conclude their contracts without incident, and to protect their property they have no reason to go to court. So they won't be forced to pay for government services - they have the choice to pay for them, to contribute to police, to armed forces, to buy contract insurance in case they want to sue or to protect themselves in case they are sued.

Just because something is a monopoly does not mean it ipso facto has the right to compel people to pay for it if they don't intend to use it. If you figure you don't need the courts, you wouldn't buy court insurance. If you want to pay for private security, you wouldn't contribute to the police. I certainly wouldn't force you to pay or advocate that you be forced to pay.

Reply

nirgrahamUK replied on Sun, May 3 2009 7:37 PM

rated by 0 users

you simply dont know what the word monopoly means.

do you understand the concept of excluding others from doing some activity? if you can legitimately do this, then you have a __________?

dont say 'business'

Reply

Knight_of_BAAWA replied on Sun, May 3 2009 7:38 PM

rated by 0 users

Stephanie Bond:

What is voluntary is that people don't have to pay for something they don't use.

Reply

Stephanie Bond replied on Sun, May 3 2009 7:39 PM

rated by 0 users

Knight_of_BAAWA:

Stephanie Bond:

if you do not wish to delegate your right of self-defense to the government, why would you choose to live in this country?

If the woman didn't want to be raped, why did she wear a short skirt?

See the problem with your stance?

Nope.

Knight_of_BAAWA:

Stephanie Bond:

Can you clarify your second question?

Roy Childs:

You imply, without stating it, that if an individual decides to use retaliation, that that decision is somehow subjective and arbitrary. Rather, supposedly the individual should leave such a decision up to government which is – what? Collective and therefore objective? This is illogical. If man is not capable of making these decisions, then he isn't capable of making them, and no government made up of men is capable of making them, either. By what epistemological criterion is an individual's action classified as "arbitrary," while that of a group of individuals is somehow "objective"?

An individual who uses retaliation would have to justify it, if the person against whom he used it brought a lawsuit. An individual who repels the attack of a thief, rapist or would-be murderer can clearly and unequivocably show that he was using self-defense. A person who comes home, sees his house has been robbed and runs to the home of his neighbor with whom he has frequently argued, and breaks in to steal back what he thinks are his own possessions, may be completely in error.

The point of delegating the right of self-defense to government is contribute to the orderly prosecution of wrong-doers, rather than making hot-headed and ill-founded accusations and effectively becoming a judge, jury and executioner as it were.

An individual's action becomes arbitrary in this scenario because while he views his own actions as "retaliatory" those actions take on the appearance of the initiation of force. The government must act only in accordance with objective principles of conduct.

I realize it is difficult to imagine how govenrment would be confined to behaving objectively and not become the same kind of entity that it has historically.

Reply

Knight_of_BAAWA replied on Sun, May 3 2009 7:48 PM

rated by 0 users

Stephanie Bond:

if you do not wish to delegate your right of self-defense to the government, why would you choose to live in this country?

Knight_of_BAAWA:

If the woman didn't want to be raped, why did she wear a short skirt?

See the problem with your stance?

Stephanie Bond:

Nope.

Stephanie Bond:

Can you clarify your second question?

Roy Childs:

You imply, without stating it, that if an individual decides to use retaliation, that that decision is somehow subjective and arbitrary. Rather, supposedly the individual should leave such a decision up to government which is – what? Collective and therefore objective? This is illogical. If man is not capable of making these decisions, then he isn't capable of making them, and no government made up of men is capable of making them, either. By what epistemological criterion is an individual's action classified as "arbitrary," while that of a group of individuals is somehow "objective"?

Stephanie Bond:

An individual who uses retaliation would have to justify it, if the person against whom he used it brought a lawsuit. An individual who repels the attack of a thief, rapist or would-be murderer can clearly and unequivocably show that he was using self-defense. A person who comes home, sees his house has been robbed and runs to the home of his neighbor with whom he has frequently argued, and breaks in to steal back what he thinks are his own possessions, may be completely in error.

The point of delegating the right of self-defense to government is contribute to the orderly prosecution of wrong-doers, rather than making hot-headed and ill-founded accusations and effectively becoming a judge, jury and executioner as it were.

Stephanie Bond:

An individual's action becomes arbitrary in this scenario because while he views his own actions as "retaliatory" those actions take on the appearance of the initiation of force. The government must act only in accordance with objective principles of conduct.

Stephanie Bond:

I realize it is difficult to imagine how govenrment would be confined to behaving objectively and not become the same kind of entity that it has historically.

Reply

whipitgood replied on Sun, May 3 2009 7:54 PM

rated by 0 users

Stephanie Bond:

Knight_of_BAAWA:

Stephanie Bond:

if you do not wish to delegate your right of self-defense to the government, why would you choose to live in this country?

If the woman didn't want to be raped, why did she wear a short skirt?

See the problem with your stance?

Nope.

Why should someone have to leave a country because they don't want to be a part of your monopoly? Are you going to use coercion to either (A) get them to participate, or (B) force them to leave? If no, then you're an anarcho-capitalist. Your monopoly will dissapear, and your 'government' will have to compete with other 'governments' on the market. Or, more correctly, businesses.

Stephanie Bond:

I realize it is difficult to imagine how govenrment would be confined to behaving objectively and not become the same kind of entity that it has historically.

Why should the government behave 'objectively,' when you have no faith that individuals can?

Reply

Stephanie Bond replied on Sun, May 3 2009 8:49 PM

rated by 0 users

nirgrahamUK:

why cant my company send people to jail?

Will your company publicize what is happening, what the person did, and who decided he should be sent to jail and for how long?

Reply

nirgrahamUK replied on Sun, May 3 2009 8:52 PM

rated by 0 users

are you answering a question with a question?

dont answer that