A challenge to minarchist

 

Ego:

I don't think you addressed any of it, unless you were sayying that Mr. Objectivist wasn't describing the situation I was describing.

My apologies, but I'm not combing the thread to figure out what your question is. Can you summarize it?

--Len

 

:pops some popcorn:

Ego:

Brainpolice, I don't think objectivist82 was advocating a government which denied individuals the right to make any free decisions (such as which organization to patronize).

He was pointing out an anarchist situation in which an individual accused (innocent or guilty) of a crime has a sentenced imposed upon him by an organization he never agreed to patronize. No matter which organization is "doing the imposing", it will clearly use force to enforce that decision.

No matter what you want to call that organization, it is clearly claiming a monopoly on that particular case, regardless of whether the accused agreed to use that organization or whether any other organizations wanted the case.

I'm talking about the bolded part of the quote above.

In another thread, I suggested that we keep our government, but remove any ability it has to interfere with voluntary transactions, in other words, it can't tax, it can't set up a minimum wage, it can't regulate alchohol, etc.

It would serve as a "fallback" or default court.

In the (possibly rare) situations in which the accuser and the accused (remember: the accused isn't always guilty and isn't always innocent) can't argee upon a court or legal system to use, the voluntarily funded government would step in and prevent any other organization/court/individual from forcibly enacting its own brand of justice.

In that thread, I was attacked by the resident vocal anarchists; my point is that my proposal is really no different from yours, but infinitely more palatable for the average person than the idea of anarchy.

Ego:

Brainpolice, I don't think objectivist82 was advocating a government which denied individuals the right to make any free decisions (such as which organization to patronize).

He was pointing out an anarchist situation in which an individual accused (innocent or guilty) of a crime has a sentenced imposed upon him by an organization he never agreed to patronize. No matter which organization is "doing the imposing", it will clearly use force to enforce that decision.

No matter what you want to call that organization, it is clearly claiming a monopoly on that particular case, regardless of whether the accused agreed to use that organization or whether any other organizations wanted the case.

You can even tell that every transaction is a monopoly of its kind. It would be so relevant.

You seemed to have missed the point  of Len Budney, which is that what distinguish statism and anarchism is not the use of force but the initiation of violence. A criminal may have not agree to be punish by a particular company, he is the agressor and then force can be used against him as a defense a posteriori, a reparation.

Ego:

Ego:

...an anarchist situation in which an individual accused (innocent or guilty) of a crime has a sentenced imposed upon him by an organization he never agreed to patronize...

I'm talking about the bolded part of the quote above.

OK, then I definitely answered that question. That's exactly what my previous post was all about.

The answer is that it's meaningless to say that "sentence was imposed on him against his will," as if this is an act of aggression. The aggressor, by choosing to aggress, has waived any right not to be aggressed against in response. Not only can the victim resist a murderer with deadly force: ANYONE ON EARTH can do so. Not only can the victim recover property from a thief: ANYONE ON EARTH can do so. It's moral when the victim does it. It's moral when a bystander does it. It's moral when Batman does it. It's moral when government-employed police do it. It's moral when space aliens do it.

When the criminal complains that he didn't consent to have his crime opposed by Batman, and attempts to charge Batman with assault, he's simply revealing his ignorance of how non-aggression works.

If that seems unresponsive to your question, perhaps it's because I didn't use the word "setence" yet. I did that purposely: under libertarian law, there's no such thing as "sentencing" as we know it. Nobody has the authority to decide that a person may be kidnapped for five years, or ten years, in response to such-and-such a crime. Restitution is the only "sentence" under libertarian law. So if you steal, you will be compelled to give the property back, as well as paying any associated costs. If you assault a man, you will be compelled to pay any resulting expenses, including things like lost wages, plus any enforcement costs. This applies directly to every crime short of murder. In the case of murder, there's some debate; I favor the death penalty.

So there's no such thing as arbitrary "sentencing" in an anarchist society. There is only restitution. Any anyone on earth has the moral right to extract restitution out of you. Even government has that right--but it does not have the right to expropriate money from the unwilling, which is how it pays its expenses today.

Finally, most "crimes" go off the books anyway. Only aggression is a crime. Cutting hair without a license is not. Any consensual activity is not. So there won't be any defense agency operatives arresting you for jaywalking, or solicitation, or gambling, or smoking weed, or flying an unregistered helicopter without a license, or smoking, or...

--Len

 

Len, I'm not sure if you read the rest of my post, but I agree with you.

Do you disagree with the rest of my post?

Edit: I think part of the problem is that you're assuming that everyone accused of a crime is guilty.

Ego:

Edit: I think part of the problem is that you're assuming that everyone accused of a crime is guilty.

If they're not guilty, then whoever used force against them is a criminal. A free society will implement a voluntary version of "due process" to minimize this, partly through a desire to do justly, but mostly through a desire to be protected from false accusations, and to prevent the criminals' angry heirs from feuding.

--Len

Ego:

In that thread, I was attacked by the resident vocal anarchists; my point is that my proposal is really no different from yours, but infinitely more palatable for the average person than the idea of anarchy.

"Infinitely"? Having a single monopolist impose his will on everyone is "infinitely" preferable to having a choice of justice systems? The same monopolist will judge cases in which he is the defendant--is that an infinite plus, or only a finite minus?

People prefer what they know. They'd rather be whipped daily in the customary way than face an unknown paradise. So yes, some people probably do prefer the injustice they know to the justice they don't. But that's because they're stupid, basically--not because the injustice really IS preferable.

--Len

...having a choice of justice systems?

Len, my proposal doesn't prevent any two people from using a court system of their choice. My proposal doesn't infringe upon any voluntary transactions, and it doesn't ingringe upon any free decisions.

Ego:

my proposal doesn't prevent any two people from using a court system of their choice.

Yes, it does.  It distorts the information on which the choices are based.

For example, you and I have a dispute.  My favorite court in all the land is the "default" court.  You can't stand it, probably for the same reason it's my favorite.  Well, that is the court you will be forced to use, and no other. 

That's true even if your favorite one is my second favorite, and I would be otherwise very happy to use it.  But so long as I don't agree to any other, I get my pick.  Instead of disagreeing being a cost to both of us (we have to fight it out if we don't agree), it's now a cost to you and a benefit to me.

Now, what if the reason it's my favorite court is that I've rigged it, or, more likely, it's biased in a way that favors my case, even if it is not just?

 

Yes, and how is that any worse than your alternative? Instead of the accused (guilty or innocent) being guaranteed a trial in the default court, the accuser can force the accused (guilty or innocent) into using a court of his choice? Let's be honest, here!

Or, if you want a more "anarchist" way of looking at it: I want a court to prevent other courts from forcing the accused (guilty or innocent) into use them; you want other courts to prevent my court from forcing the accused (guilty or innocent) into using it.

What's really the difference?

The solution obviously is a random selection of alternate courts.

Like, "Wheel of Court".  A game show and a selection process.  Proceeds can go towards paying the court fees.

 

Ego:

the accusor can force the accused (guilty or innocent) into using a court of his choice?

Liar.

It's been pointed out to you repeatedly that that statement is false.

 

Ego:

the accusor can force the accused (guilty or innocent) into using a court of his choice?

As has been pointed out in pungent terms, you've got that wrong. That isn't how it works. There is quite a bit of literature out there on the functioning of a free-market justice system; if you won't believe our telling you things, perhaps you might read some of that?

--Len.

 

 

Len, I'm not wrong. If the accused (guilty or innocent) refuses to agree with the accuser about which court to use, there's no other way to bring him/her to justice.

Ego:

Len, I'm not wrong. If the accused (guilty or innocent) refuses to agree with the accusor about which court to use, there's no other way to bring him/her to justice.

This has already been addressed in another thread. And I must say that the fact that you still haven't read any libertarian texts (aside from Economics in One Lesson, which is more economics than political theory) despite making over 750 posts on these forums, and that you don't show any inclination to read any of them, much less carefully, gives me the impression that you're not really interested in learning or in the philosophical and scientific search for truth. It's even been difficult getting you to actually address our arguments in these forums. Please do make a better effort to engage with us in a two-way discourse in these forums and to actually learn what all has been said in print with respect to anarchy and the law.

 

Geoffrey, you had the same self-important attitude in the other thread; instead of explaining the unexplainable, you became fixated on the fact that I don't care to read libertarian texts. You never even responded to my later replies.

You did give one response in your previous thread to that question-that-must-not-be-asked: you said that if the accused (guilty or innocent) refuses to agree with the accuser about which court to use, the only solution is vigilante justice. You then tried to say that vigilante justice is "outside of your legal system" so you shouldn't have to defend it, but doesn't that leave a huge, gaping hole in your system? Why shouldn't you have to defend it? It's a hole that my proposal plugs up without infringing upon any voluntary agreements.

Now, could you could read my last few replies in this thread and actually respond to them, instead of saying, "read some more books, you just aren't smart enough yet"? I'll even quote them for you if you'd like.

Ego:

Geoffrey, you had the same self-important attitude in the other thread; instead of explaining the unexplainable, you became fixated on the fact that I don't care to read libertarian texts. You never even responded to my later replies.

You did give one response in your previous thread to that question-that-must-not-be-asked: you said that if the accused (guilty or innocent) refuses to agree with the accusor about which court to use, the only solution is vigilante justice. You then tried to say that vigilante justice is "outside of your legal system" so you shouldn't have to defend it, but doesn't that leave a huge, gaping hole in your system? Why shouldn't you have to defend it? It's a hole that my proposal plugs up without infringing upon any voluntary agreements.

Now, could you could read my last few replies in this thread and actually respond to them, instead of saying, "read some more books, you just aren't smart enough yet"? I'll even quote them for you if you'd like.

Let me guess: "leftists" are the only ones capable of being self-important?

Also, does your system abolish vigilantism?  If it doesn't, then maybe you should address such a huge, gaping hole in your system. 

Unless you want to agrue that no one has free-will, vigilantism will potentially always remain an option; albiet illegal as it goes outside the legal system, but an option that would be impossible to persuade every single individual out there to not consider at all, under any circumstances.    

 

No, my proposal doesn't abolish vigilantism; it IS vigilantism on behalf of the government!

I keep trying to explain; my proposal is in no way incompatibly with anarchy; in fact, none of the arguments against Len I set forth on these last two pages can be refuted because they are such common-sense truths.

Ego, you might think you're gifted, or whatever, but please don't be so arrogant (and don't deny that you are) as to presume that you can reinvent the whole of the wheel by yourself. Actually make the effort to read For a New Liberty, so you don't waste our time. You think we're here to tutor you. We're not. If you were genuinely interested in clearing up misconceptions, fine, but make sure you first do the basic groundwork.

-Jon

Ego:

Len, I'm not wrong. If the accused (guilty or innocent) refuses to agree with the accusor about which court to use, there's no other way to bring him/her to justice.

Apart from vigilanteism, there is one more option: ostracism. The accused may be shunned or expelled by others in the community if he refuses to address his accusor.  Justice can really be that simple.  Also, it is beautifully cheap.

Now, if this accused (guilty or innocent) refuses to go to court, any court, and then seeks refuge with other people, so be it, I say.  His protectors may be shunned too. 

Ultimately, when you get right down to it, nobody has an incentive to harbor a criminal.

Ego:

Len, I'm not wrong. If the accused (guilty or innocent) refuses to agree with the accusor about which court to use, there's no other way to bring him/her to justice.

If the accused is sufficiently intransigent, the accuser will kill him. Justice is founded entirely in the self-defense principle. You appear completely immersed in the notion that justice rests in an omnipotent third party; it doesn't. It rests with the victim's right to defend himself and recover what is his. The accuser will present evidence for his side of the story if anyone accuses him of murder, not because he's morally obligated to, but because he doesn't want anyone to mistake him for a murderer and kill him. This really doesn't seem to be sinking in for you.

Geoffrey, you had the same self-important attitude in the other thread; instead of explaining the unexplainable, you became fixated on the fact that I don't care to read libertarian texts. You never even responded to my later replies.

Self-important? Geoffrey is being very patient with you. Your posts are only marginally better than someone showing up on a Jewish forum and posting, "What about that ham thing, eg? I like ham!" hundreds and hundreds of times. The questions you're raising are mostly uninteresting to us because we do have answers for them, and consider the questions extremely elementary. The only benefit we get out of discussing them with you is to refine our ability at explaining ourselves, and possibly to win you over--achieving anarchy one mind at a time. But if you aren't carrying your end of the conversation, which involves learning the background and understanding our explanations, there's no reward in the conversation for us.

If that sounds "self-important" to you, so be it. Go on a plumbing forum and ask over and over, "How do you make sure the toilet goes in right-side up?" Go on an auto-mechanics forum and ask over and over, "How can spark plugs really work? The "spark" is electricity, not fire! So how can it set fuel on fire, if it isn't fire?" Go on a fox-hunting forum and ask, "Why horseback? Why not on motorcycles?" You'll find lots of "self-importance" everywhere you look.

--Len

OK, so you aren't going to respond my previous replies; I'm beyond trying to convince you now, I'm just trying to convince other readers of this thread.

Think about it this way; under your propsal, Geoffrey, you've agreed that the only way to actually punish the accused (guilty or innocent) if he/she can't agree upon a court with the accusor is vigilante justice. When I pointed this out, you said, "but vigilante justice is outside of my legal system; plus, every legal system is going to have it".

Bold move.

Imagine someone who was proposing a legal system in which you can't punish the accused (guilty or innocent) without his/her consent. When someone asks, "If the accused doesn't want to be punished, is the only way to punish him/her vigilante justice?", that person angrily responds, "So what? That's outside of my legal system. I shouldn't have to defend it. Anyways, all legal systems have vigilante justice." Why shouldn't he have to defend that gaping hole in his legal system?

You are pulling the same stunt as the person in the previous paragraph. You seem shocked that I dare bring up that gaping hole in your legal system; when I propose a plug that doesn't violate any voluntary transactions (two people can agree to use any court they want), you tell me (in more words) to go back to school.

Since many anarchists (understandably) have a knee-jerk opposition to anything with the label "state", how about this:

I propose a vigilante organization (voluntarily funded, of course) that will fight to prevent other vigilantes from forcing their own personal brand of justice and law upon the accused (guilty or innocent); instead, we, as vigilantes, will offer a fair a trial for the accused (guilty or innocent) with due process. Still, like all other vigilantes, we will use force to enforce our verdict.

Like it more? In all of these threads, you have yet to explain

• How my proposal is incompatible with anarchy, or
• How my proposal violates a single voluntary transaction
  

That's because neither is true!

Ego:

You are pulling the same stunt as the person in the previous paragraph. You seem shocked that I dare bring up that gaping hole in your legal system

No. Just irritated that you don't understand "our" legal system at all, and yet are "poking holes" in what you don't even understand.

--Len

Well, I would hope the minarchists would accept our views of libertarianism. I always few them as allies and, admittedly, I would be very happy with even a minarchist society, but to me small government is still an invasion on freedom, the opinion that some services are so fundamental that they need to be installed in a society to me defeats itself, since nothing would stop the majority to install them in an anarchist society.

Bardock42:

the opinion that some services are so fundamental that they need to be installed in a society to me defeats itself, since nothing would stop the majority to install them in an anarchist society.

Isn't it odd that so many people assume that the more important some value is, the less it should be subject to market incentives?  In fact, the more important something is, the more it needs to be provided by a free market and free of coercive interference.  If the government has to be involved in providing something (which it doesn't), I'd rather it be, say, luxury yachts than defense and law.

Stranger:

Suppose that a glorious revolution overthrows the government of your country and the revolutionaries assemble in order to draft a new constitution. The two main factions are the majority Sons of Liberty (pro-state) and the Congress of Free Courts (anti-state). As per the minarchist ideology, the new constitution establishes a monopoly on justice that grants legislative power to an elected body. The minority Congress of Free Courts walks out of the assembly in disgust and vows to disobey the new government.

Once you have been elected president of the new minarchist republic, would you launch a war against the CFC in order to subjugate them to your new government? 

I realize that this is an old thread , but felt I had to take the challenge, please forgive me for not fully digesting the many responses, I'll simply attempt to answer this first post.

I'm not aware of too many historical situations where two factions had found themselves in this predicament, the nearest I can think of is India & Pakistan after Independance.I imagine you would'nt want me to get away with using that resolution of splitting the territory and moving the residents that would be the easy option.

So methinks your assuming that the territorys could not be split and the people people moved, this is a pretty unfair challenge as I'm not aware of any country thats managed to achieve this type of political merger.  

We simply could not live together (one faction who accepts a state & one who does not) mixed up like this because Anarchs would be benefiting from the protection of Minarch defensive forces without paying for it

If Minarchs were not willing to live as Anarchs then we would have to negotiate split territorys and move, we cannot benefit from the minimal state whilst mixed up like this, we choose relocation because the environment is not able to efficiently support our requirements. Full Stop.

The Question then becomes are Anarchs capable of Negotiating Split Territories, Assuming you cannot because you staunchly observe your right not to have to move house

The Question then becomes is denying us the right to a state an Aggresion against our liberty

Mmmmmm

Yes = Anarchs get forcibly moved

No = Minarchs have nowhere in which to create a state.

UK Minarchist

 

We simply could not live together (one faction who accepts a state & one who does not) mixed up like this because Anarchs would be benefiting from the protection of Minarch defensive forces without paying for it

Tough fucking luck for the "Minarchs". If they don't like the fact that others benefit from their services without paying for them (and yet provide them anyway), they have an option: to stop providing them. Or, they can ask politely. It's analogous to one's neighbour demanding compensation for the aesthetic pleasure their flowers provide, when no one commissioned them to provide them in the first place. In all likelihood, anarchists will be dealing with some of the firms in the minarchist territory, and said firms will pass on a share of their tax burden to their end consumers. So either why, this poses no problem.

-Jon

Jon Irenicus:

We simply could not live together (one faction who accepts a state & one who does not) mixed up like this because Anarchs would be benefiting from the protection of Minarch defensive forces without paying for it

Tough fucking luck for the "Minarchs". If they don't like the fact that others benefit from their services without paying for them (and yet provide them anyway), they have an option: to stop providing them. Or, they can ask politely. It's analogous to one's neighbour demanding compensation for the aesthetic pleasure their flowers provide, when no one commissioned them to provide them in the first place. In all likelihood, anarchists will be dealing with some of the firms in the minarchist territory, and said firms will pass on a share of their tax burden to their end consumers. So either why, this poses no problem.

-Jon

Oh I see, so the Anarch view is Whats mine is mine so keep your hands off & If I benefit from a states services without paying for it then Tough Fucking Luck

Am I detecting an underlying selfish attitude in this ideology?

And why on earth would a firm choose to locate in a territory that requires taxation so close to non tax payers, more likely they would locate with the Non tax payers and service the Minarchs, denying us our own commercial entitys.

Jeez - I've been foolish we're more different than I thought.

Bye

UK Minarchist 

Oh I see, so the Anarch view is Whats mine is mine so keep your hands off & If I benefit from a states services without paying for it then Tough Fucking Luck

 

Am I detecting an underlying selfish attitude in this ideology?

No, it's called only charging for a service when it was explicitly requested in the first place. I would not take my neighbour seriously if he expected me to pay up for his garden. For all he knows, I may hate it. I do not see how this case differs.

And why on earth would a firm choose to locate in a territory that requires taxation so close to non tax payers, more likely they would locate with the Non tax payers and service the Minarchs, denying us our own commercial entitys.

True. Such is life, I suppose.

Jeez - I've been foolish we're more different than I thought.

Minarchists and anarchists? Not necessarily. You've just yet to abandon a great many mainstream indoctinated notions.

-Jon

GWilly:

We simply could not live together (one faction who accepts a state & one who does not) mixed up like this because Anarchs would be benefiting from the protection of Minarch defensive forces without paying for it

Not true.

There is no such thing as a "free rider problem". If trees on my property produce oxygen which you then breath can I come to your house and demand, with threat of violence, that you pay me for the oxygen? No!

Gun owners "subsidize" none gun owners by making home invasion more risky for criminals, by increasing the likelyhood that a home will have a gun. Should gun owners then be able to demand tribute from none gun owners for this "service"? Thats exactly what you just suggested!

Just because you preceive me to benefit from your actions does not entitle you to payment. If you want payment, find a way to withhold those benefits. Maybe I'll then decide to pay you for them, but maybe I won't.

But in reality an anarchist population would be an armed merchant class and would deter invasion far better than any statist military,(as it would rely on both negative and positive incentives). Maybe you should be paying them.

GWilly:

 

The Question then becomes is denying us the right to a state an Aggresion against our liberty

Mmmmmm

Yes = Anarchs get forcibly moved

No = Minarchs have nowhere in which to create a state.

UK Minarchist

You're dodging the real question. Whatever it is you claim about your liberty to have a state being denied, the anarchs aren't going to change their minds. You have only one choice to make: to fight or not fight.

 

JonBostwick:

GWilly:

We simply could not live together (one faction who accepts a state & one who does not) mixed up like this because Anarchs would be benefiting from the protection of Minarch defensive forces without paying for it

Not true.

There is no such thing as a "free rider problem". If trees on my property produce oxygen which you then breath can I come to your house and demand, with threat of violence, that you pay me for the oxygen? No!

Gun owners "subsidize" none gun owners by making home invasion more risky for criminals, by increasing the likelyhood that a home will have a gun. Should gun owners then be able to demand tribute from none gun owners for this "service"? Thats exactly what you just suggested!

Just because you preceive me to benefit from your actions does not entitle you to payment. If you want payment, find a way to withhold those benefits. Maybe I'll then decide to pay you for them, but maybe I won't.

But in reality an anarchist population would be an armed merchant class and would deter invasion far better than any statist military,(as it would rely on both negative and positive incentives). Maybe you should be paying them.

Then lets call it a Free Rider Challenge, IMHO the intricacies and potential injustices involved in living in a mixed society negates the potential economies & efficiencies that having a centralized administration centre is supposed to give.

Without gettinginto the All Government is Parasitic & All voting is meaningless argument lets look at the Minarch Challenge.

Surely we could issue all of our Minarchs with BioPasses to allow only them access to minstate resources etc. but the Infrastructure utilization sharing challenge goes far beyond just a visible military & swimming pools etc...., there would be new roads, street lighting, telephone lines and a million other things that no doubt Anarchs would say "we did'nt ask for it, we won't pay for it, but we can morally use it (and thus steal use of it as long as it can not be determined as an aggression)".

It would stunt our natural development. Who would vote to spend tax money on building a park only to see it invaded by Non-Contributors.

IMHO Minarchs simply negate the NAP challenge of Taxation simply by making it a TWO WAY contractual obligation for living amongst us http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2006/nov/24/publicservices.immigrationpolicy, If you don't sign the contract then you cannot live amongst us But Minarchs can live amongst you as we believe in the NAP.

If you are already amongst us at inception and will not negotiate a territory split then my original Questions stand

Stranger - I do not dodge the real Question - Remember that Minarchs are intrinsically democratic - I alone would never be given the power to decide a course of action, all that we can do is democratically agree on the definition of the question & then democratically vote on it.

The outcome would depend on the collective mood/understanding of the situation at the time of voting.

One thing for sure is that Minarchs cannot simply toss aside the NAP and subjugate you when it suits them as NAP is core to our beliefs and would be written into our Legislature.

IMHO the only problem with Democracy is that it has never in history been TRULY implemented. this has been because of many reasons, lack of will by self serving politicians and the sheer logistics of formally gathering educated opinion being two of the main ones, overcoming these challenges is far less difficult today than it was ten years ago.

Anarchs (and their teenage children) however rely on arbitration by Local SOA's to enforce NAP - thus leaving the door open for current state evils to be practiced at the local level instaed of, for the the Minarchs at state level.

I'm afraid that I do not subscribe to the AnCap view that the State will always CONTINUE to be Parasitic and that the provision of formerly state services should be handed over to profit making enterprise, regulated by small decentralized SOA's  & thusly we will all live better lives in a society of a new natural order.

Natures Natural Order is a monkey of one species eating the brains of a monkey from another species because he is hungry. Granted that not all monkeys are carnivores (and probably not the one being eaten)

Thankyou for helping me better understand the options & strenghtening my convictions.

UK Minarcist

Natures Natural Order is a monkey of one species eating the brains of a monkey from another species because he is hungry. Granted that not all monkeys are carnivores (and probably not the one being eaten)

Ipse dixit. You suffer from a negative view of man. Now, how about you take that view and consider what assigning this evil being called "man" a monopoly over force will do, and then see why the above argument is bunk.

-Jon

Jon if you believe that you can remove the parasitic evils of the state by decentralizing it & re-allocating that power to profit making enterprises, then so be it.

I firmly believe that Man is intrinsically of good nature, just try asking a stranger for directions. But Beware if that stranger owns a shop and your making a delivery to his competitor.

This is the nature of man, neither of us can change this.

However

Profit making enterprises do not have morals and only a transient subjugated conscience, both are superseeded by the requirement to produce a greater Profit and increase in size (often beyond the boundaries and powers of the state). They will never follow the NAP unless it is legislated upon them. They would eagerly relocate if they could find an arbitraor that was willing (for personal gain) to allow them to be more effective in the pursuit of profit. and then when your collective finnaly sacked the arbitrator he would retire to his yacht & the enterprise would relocate to another arbitrator.

I suppose the argument could well be that you have removed the evil by re-allocating state control to an entity that has no morality & thusly not capable of evil - as evil is born of the conflict of morality (social altruism) and the desire for personal gain.

IMHO the Proposed AnCap Free Market Stateless Utopia is a foolish endeavour, promoted by the naive & by selfish capitalists who wish to promote the profit making enterprise beyond the reach of legislation that (in principle) endeavours to serve the common good.

UK Minarchist

GWilly:

IMHO the Proposed AnCap Free Market Stateless Utopia is a foolish endeavour, promoted by the naive & by selfish capitalists who wish to promote the profit making enterprise beyond the reach of legislation that (in principle) endeavours to serve the common good.

Now that is just insulting and uncalled for.  Very disappointing that this is the result of the discussion from your end.

As you seem to believe your convictions are now strengthened (I don't know that it's possible to become more irrational, but perhaps so), then maybe it is time we went our separate ways.  It's a shame that you can't imagine a world without all of the strawmen you have been socialized to believe in, and all of the fear about your fellow man whether it's violence or profit seeking that you are so scared of, yet you allow your government to use those same tactics against you, and think it makes you safer and your life better off.

Best luck with your website and your endeavour.  Maybe you can seize the reins of government, and realize that it is impossible to dictate to people, and still observe the NAP.

I think you actually need to get a book out by an anarchist before making such ignorant, sweeping proclamations, because in all honesty I can just retort that minarchism is a foolish endeavour, giving a select few men, some of which likely to be evil and "selfish" (whatever that means) a monopoly over force, which the consumer is forced to consume, divorcing good service from the prospect of future higher returns, and thus leaving little to no incentive to act in such a manner. They will follow the NAP because if they don't, they will have forced used against them in retaliation and also because (partly because of the former) aggression is costly and they will suffer losses. Compare this, please, to a state which foists its costs upon third parties. And please don't try purge the element of selfishness from the minarchical state - it's just as much present.

Whenever a small elite fears that its plans are being uncovered and foiled by the masses, it will impute to them "selfishness" in the hope that they'll sacrifice their own interests to this elite's good (which it'll call the nation's/"society's"/God's/the "People's"/the "public's" good.) Some actually believe this nonsense, and side with the elite.

-Jon

liberty student:

GWilly:

IMHO the Proposed AnCap Free Market Stateless Utopia is a foolish endeavour, promoted by the naive & by selfish capitalists who wish to promote the profit making enterprise beyond the reach of legislation that (in principle) endeavours to serve the common good.

Now that is just insulting and uncalled for.  Very disappointing that this is the result of the discussion from your end.

As you seem to believe your convictions are now strengthened (I don't know that it's possible to become more irrational, but perhaps so), then maybe it is time we went our separate ways.  It's a shame that you can't imagine a world without all of the strawmen you have been socialized to believe in, and all of the fear about your fellow man whether it's violence or profit seeking that you are so scared of, yet you allow your government to use those same tactics against you, and think it makes you safer and your life better off.

Best luck with your website and your endeavour.  Maybe you can seize the reins of government, and realize that it is impossible to dictate to people, and still observe the NAP.

Yup - sorry that you found my opinion insulting Liberty Student, I apologize, I've enjoyed considering your views & thanks to Jon, JonB, Stranger, Mac, scin, simon, Max, JAl & other members of mises for their patience with me.

I was sort of reaching the conclusion that this is not a place for me as it seems the mises wishes to delete the state in all it's forms, I will always endeavour to remain open minded.

Fundamentaly  I just feel that the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the one!

Hopefuly one day this view can coexist with NAP if a suitable TWO WAY contract between the individual and a Democratic minimal state can be agreed upon.

Good luck to you (please forgive me for not adding "and your endeavours" ) 

It's been Fun

UK Minarchist

GWilly:

Good luck to you (please forgive me for not adding "and your endeavours" )

I don't know if you will read this, but I wanted to say, this is another uncalled for remark.

We all want peace, happiness, increases in the standard of living, and the advancement of man kind in a moral and ethical manner.  That you continue to imply that our goals are different from those, or that our methods have not been thought through is insulting.

You may differ from many of us on the method, in fact many of us disagree on methods daily here, but that doesn't mean what we endeavour to accomplish is any less noble or worthwhile than what you seek to achieve.

I wish you were a little more open minded, and took more than a day to reach conclusions on anarchism, particularly since you seem to have so many misconceptions and prejudices against it.

 

GWilly:

Stranger - I do not dodge the real Question - Remember that Minarchs are intrinsically democratic - I alone would never be given the power to decide a course of action, all that we can do is democratically agree on the definition of the question & then democratically vote on it.

The outcome would depend on the collective mood/understanding of the situation at the time of voting.

 

That's the coward's way out. You aren't making a principled stand on your own, you are delegating the power to send you to war to someone else. The problem remains the same. If your democracy votes not to fight, then minarchy collapses and the anarchs get what they want. If your democracy votes to fight, then whatever gains from scale having a state national army provides will be moot by all the money you will need to spend to wipe out the anarchist rebellion.

So what would you vote for?