General

Re: You guys are right

twistedbydsign99 — Mon, 06 Jul 2009 16:08:37 GMT

Please lock this thread, put a fork in it, its done.

Re: You guys are right

Conza88 — Mon, 06 Jul 2009 03:56:25 GMT

Spideynw:
Jacob seems to be typical of most people. I cornered him with an argument, and he has yet to respond to it.

Yeah, he just did the exact same here. Ignored Mises' demolition, of his retarded position. Enforce your property rights already mods... (Ban him)

He's wasting brandwidth.

Re: You guys are right

Spideynw — Sun, 05 Jul 2009 18:13:49 GMT

Jacob seems to be typical of most people. I cornered him with an argument, and he has yet to respond to it.

Re: You guys are right

Harry Felker — Fri, 03 Jul 2009 16:05:39 GMT

AJ:
From For a New Liberty,

Not that I posted the link to this a few times for him....

Reading it is dangerous for him..... He wont do it....

Re: You guys are right

Harry Felker — Fri, 03 Jul 2009 16:01:05 GMT

Jacob Bloom:

wilderness:

Jacob Bloom:

I think you are incontinent because you rely on an overrationalized set of values that you claim to be absolute that will crumble eventually. When that happens, you will be totally and utterly out of control.

Incontinence is not that you think I may be out of control in some point in time.

Incontinence is you saying you are out of control and need a master.

Your only control is your weak master that you imagine. When that weak master disappears, so too will your self control.

Ahh and here it is Jacob (Mr. I am a basless animal that is seconds from rooting in feces), claiming that wilderness has the same shortcomings....

Re: You guys are right

Harry Felker — Fri, 03 Jul 2009 15:53:54 GMT

Jacob Bloom:

Harry Felker:

Jacob Bloom:
I suggest you read Atlas Shrugged and you will find yourself on the looter side talking about love and courage as opposed to reason and logic.

I see you read that with as great comprehention that you display here....

Do you remember the Machine, meant to control people through FEAR?

Do you remeber the Torture, how they were attempting to get Galt to submit through terror?????

Look in the Mirror, you are the looter, advocating the looting of Americans to pay for things they do not want for your benefit....

Threatening strong arm tactics if you do nto get your way, simply because opportunity arrises.....

You are the worst of their kind, you think you are not the enemy, you really believe you are not the enemy, you build a dogma around this fact, and in the end, you deny your hypocrisy.....

First of all, you don't have to pay. But if you don't want to pay, you can kindly leave.

Galt left. He didn't like the system so he left it. You have the same ability. You refuse to use it.

Whatever I am is exactly what you will have a hard time dealing with in your society. And I'm mild.

GALT WENT TO COLORADO ASS HAT THAT IS PART OF THE US!!!

Are you retarded?

And consquentally no I won't, if some asshat like yourself rolls up saying I have to pay for his army, well, he will not be walking away....

I am sorry Jakob, buit there is a mechanism for dealing with the likes of you in an Anarchist society, we can cut cancer right out of the system....

Re: You guys are right

Harry Felker — Fri, 03 Jul 2009 15:49:32 GMT

Jacob Bloom:
1. How can you be more or less human than me? It's not possible. We're all humans. You seem to think you're special. I don't think you are. I think you would throw away your moral code at the drop of a hat if you thought it was in your interest to do so.

No Jakob, I do not think I am better than other humans, I think most of humanitiy is like me, I think you are less than human....

You Jakob must think I am more than human, because you think most of humanity is like you, and you perceive humanity as to needing an overlord....

Jacob Bloom:
2. Of course I'm an animal. Humans are animals. We come from nature. What do you think we come from? Clouds? I'm just an animal with a big brain. But fear works as well on me or you as it would on a dog or a cat.

Taking the adjective away from the statement, nice propaganda Jakobski, of course we are animals Jakob, but somehow we manage to not prance around naked and sniff each other's asses....

We are more than the constitutent parts Jacob, we are thinking things....

You Jakob are a baseless animal, there is a difference....

Jacob Bloom:
3. I never said equal. I said same. We're all built the same way. Whatever differences there are between us are minimal. Which means there are certain things we all have in common. Socialism is the idea that all areas of government are best managed centrally. I'm not a socialist. By the way, what did you go to jail for? I'm just curious, you don't have to tell me.

Really?

Jacob Bloom:
We are all basically the same thing.

Socialism Highlights Egalitarianism, central governments have been postulated as the best route for such

And Jakob, there is a universe of difference between us

Weapons Charge... Owning firearms without license....

Jacob Bloom:
4. It won't be me who comes and takes everything from your anarchist region. But if I am one of them, I'll keep in mind that some of you know how to use a gun.

If you keep that in mind, you won't come....

Jacob Bloom:
That being said, I respect myself because I know how powerful I can become, how capable I am of learning and developing my own ideas. I respect my own power and my own ability. Morals are...negotiable. The only thing I respect about morality is how easily some people are tricked into believing it protects them.

No one is saying that morality protects, it is a guide, that is all, you seem to disagree with that... whatever, you can live in fear of everything around you, me on the other hand, will not....

Jacob Bloom:
5. The relevance is that for your private system to work, you'll need to be able to handle that many cases. The IJC, a private court, has barely been able to handle 100 cases since 1945 and it does a lousy job at it. If your system isn't prepared to conclusively deal with millions of cases a year, it won't work. By conclusively, I mean that the decisions that are reached are final and upheld. Who is going to uphold justice if everyone can just go to a different court?

You could read that small link I gave you oh about 15 to 20 pages back.....

Re: You guys are right

Conza88 — Fri, 03 Jul 2009 15:06:19 GMT

Jacob Bloom:

Admit that you have done a poor job of presenting your ideas, and I will ask you to ban me.

Also, you didn't answer my questions about the courts, why not?

Wow, the very first page of this thread has the answer!

You could have saved 30pages of your bs & instead read a complete chapter of Rothbard's For a New Liberty, called "The Public Sector, III: Police, Law, and the Courts p215 ". But I mean really, who are we kidding - and this includes yourself. You're not here to learn, you're here to get a kick out of a pseudo power trip as others deem you immoral whilst you openly talk about raping and pillaging others.

It is in all likelihood, that you are a psychopath & just don't know it. How many do you check off the list? All?

"Are You Involved With A Psychopath?" by Michael G. Conner, Psy.D

You're not interested in anarcho-capitalism, then what are you doing asking questions about it? Why are you still here? *yawn*

Re: You guys are right

Conza88 — Fri, 03 Jul 2009 15:02:55 GMT

Jacob Bloom:

I am here to learn, but not here to complacently agree. I'm not a cow, I will not be led carelessly into your philosophy without LEARNING what it's really about.

ORLY.

Jacob Bloom:

Conza88:
Jacob Bloom:
But I thought I'd try to be humble and admit that I realize that at least part of what you were saying was right.

What books have you read on Anarcho-Capitalism? Don't be afraid of saying none.

I'm not interested in anarcho capitalism.

Re: You guys are right

AJ — Fri, 03 Jul 2009 13:16:53 GMT

Jacob Bloom:
1. Alright, first question, how many different courts will there be in your system and what authority will they have over other court rulings? If court A finds me guilty, can I just go ask court b? If court b agrees with me, does that overrule court a? Why or why not?

From For a New Liberty,

"Mr. Jones is robbed, his hired detective agency decides that one Brown committed the crime, and Brown refuses to concede his guilt. What then? In the first place, we must recognize that there is at present no overall world court or world government enforcing its decrees; yet while we live in a state of 'international anarchy' there is little or no problem in disputes between private citizens of two countries. Suppose that right now, for example, a citizen of Uruguay claims that he has been swindled by a citizen of Argentina. Which court does he go to? He goes to his own, i.e., the victim's or the plaintiff's court. The case proceeds in the Uruguayan court, and its decision is honored by the Argentinian court. The same is true if an American feels he has been swindled by a Canadian, and so on. In Europe after the Roman Empire, when German tribes lived side by side and in the same areas, if a Visigoth felt that he had been injured by a Frank, he took the case to his own court, and the decision was generally accepted by the Franks. Going to the plaintiff's court is the rational libertarian procedure as well, since the victim or plaintiff is the one who is aggrieved, and who naturally takes the case to his own court. So, in our case, Jones would go to the Prudential Court Company to charge Brown with theft.

"It is possible, of course, that Brown is also a client of the Prudential Court, in which case there is no problem. The Prudential's decision covers both parties, and becomes binding. But one important stipulation is that no coercive subpoena power can be used against Brown, because he must be considered innocent until he is convicted. But Brown would be served with a voluntary subpoena, a notice that he is being tried on such and such a charge and inviting him or his legal representative to appear. If he does not appear, then he will be tried in absentia, and [p. 226] this will obviously be less favorable for Brown since his side of the case will not be pleaded in court. If Brown is declared guilty, then the court and its marshals will employ force to seize Brown and exact whatever punishment is decided upon — a punishment which obviously will focus first on restitution to the victim.

"What, however, if Brown does not recognize the Prudential Court? What if he is a client of the Metropolitan Court Company? Here the case becomes more difficult. What will happen then? First, victim Jones pleads his case in the Prudential Court. If Brown is found innocent, this ends the controversy. Suppose, however, that defendant Brown is found guilty. If he does nothing, the court's judgment proceeds against him. Suppose, however, Brown then takes the case to the Metropolitan Court Company, pleading inefficiency or venality by Prudential. The case will then be heard by Metropolitan. If Metropolitan also finds Brown guilty, this too ends the controversy and Prudential will proceed against Brown with dispatch. Suppose, however, that Metropolitan finds Brown innocent of the charge. Then what? Will the two courts and their arms-wielding marshals shoot it out in the streets?

"Once again, this would clearly be irrational and self-destructive behavior on the part of the courts. An essential part of their judicial service to their clients is the provision of just, objective, and peacefully functioning decisions — the best and most objective way of arriving at the truth of who committed the crime. Arriving at a decision and then allowing chaotic gunplay would scarcely be considered valuable judicial service by their customers. Thus, an essential part of any court's service to its clients would be an appeals procedure. In short, every court would agree to abide by an appeals trial, as decided by a voluntary arbitrator to whom Metropolitan and Prudential would now turn. The appeals judge would make his decision, and the result of this third trial would be treated as binding on the guilty. The Prudential court would then proceed to enforcement.

"An appeals court! But isn't this setting up a compulsory monopoly government once again? No, because there is nothing in the system that requires any one person or court to be the court of appeal. In short, in the United States at present the Supreme Court is established as the court of final appeal, so the Supreme Court judges become the final arbiters regardless of the wishes of plaintiff or defendant alike. In contrast, in the libertarian society the various competing private courts could go to any appeals judge they think fair, expert, and objective. No single appeals judge or set of judges would be foisted upon society by coercion.

"How would the appeals judges be financed? There are many possible ways, but the most likely is that they will be paid by the various original courts who would charge their customers for appeals services in their premiums or fees.

"But suppose Brown insists on another appeals judge, and yet another? Couldn't he escape judgment by appealing ad infinitum? Obviously, in any society legal proceedings cannot continue indefinitely; there must be some cutoff point. In the present statist society, where government monopolizes the judicial function, the Supreme Court is arbitrarily designated as the cutoff point. In the libertarian society, there would also have to be an agreed-upon cutoff point, and since there are only two parties to any crime or dispute — the plaintiff and the defendant — it seems most sensible for the legal code to declare that a decision arrived at by any two courts shall be binding. This will cover the situation when both the plaintiff's and the defendant's courts come to the same decision, as well as the situation when an appeals court decides on a disagreement between the two original courts."

As for the number of courts, that one is indeed like asking how many burger bars, in the sense that the market must decide and we cannot know. Moreover, if we could answer your question, the very fact that we could answer it would be an argument against anarchy, because part of the case for anarchy is there are some things only the market can know. If this sounds like a cop-out, I refer you to Hasnas:

"...[L]aw is a public good which, unlike shoes, really is crucial to public welfare. It is easy to see how the free market can adequately supply the public with shoes. But how can it possibly provide the order-generating and maintaining processes necessary for the peaceful coexistence of human beings in society? What would a free market in legal services be like?

"I am always tempted to give the honest and accurate response to this challenge, which is that to ask the question is to miss the point. If human beings had the wisdom and knowledge-generating capacity to be able to describe how a free market would work, that would be the strongest possible argument for central planning. One advocates a free market not because of some moral imprimatur written across the heavens, but because it is impossible for human beings to amass the knowledge of local conditions and the predictive capacity necessary to effectively organize economic relationships among millions of individuals. It is possible to describe what a free market in shoes would be like because we have one. But such a description is merely an observation of the current state of a functioning market, not a projection of how human beings would organize themselves to supply a currently non-marketed good. To demand that an advocate of free market law describe in advance how markets would supply legal services (or shoes) is to issue an impossible challenge. Further, for an advocate of free market law to even accept this challenge would be to engage in self-defeating activity since the more successfully he or she could describe how the law (or shoe) market would function, the more he or she would prove that it could be run by state planners. Free markets supply human wants better than state monopolies precisely because they allow an unlimited number of suppliers to attempt to do so. By patronizing those who most effectively meet their particular needs and causing those who do not to fail, consumers determine the optimal method of supply. If it were possible to specify in advance what the outcome of this process of selection would be, there would be no need for the process itself.

"Although I am tempted to give this response, I never do. This is because, although true, it never persuades. Instead, it is usually interpreted as an appeal for blind faith in the free market, and the failure to provide a specific explanation as to how such a market would provide legal services is interpreted as proof that it cannot. Therefore, despite the self-defeating nature of the attempt, I usually do try to suggest how a free market in law might work..."

By the way, you've got your conception of market vs. human imperfection backwards. It's precisely because humans are fallible that the free market is such a boon to human welfare. The beauty of the free market is that all each person has to look after is his or her own self-interest, but this "magically" results in great prosperity for all. There need be no central planner. Watch this entertaining video. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BRhtmcxDSIs

Re: You guys are right

JAlanKatz — Fri, 03 Jul 2009 13:00:02 GMT

AJ:
And as for some of the odd statements, hey, this stuff is not exactly easy. People will have crazy ideas or sound crazy if they try to explain their views in short form. You've already adequately shown that, and some have attacked you for it. I have not, because I know people accidentally tend to sound crazy when talking about the dark, unexplored corners of the political world. For the same reason, I would not condemn anarchy based on your reception here. Go to DailyKos.com and try to get anything close to the relatively patient treatment you're getting here. I personally wish people would be much more patient, but compared to other sites we're paragons of discourse here.

One of the reasons I've stayed out of the "main" conversation here and just picked at the edges is that I got a bit frustrated with some of the ways people were responding - but overall, I think this is exactly right. Message boards are horrible places to discuss ideas that involve any logical chains, as opposed to bumper-sticker concepts. That's why we also have articles here.

Re: You guys are right

AJ — Fri, 03 Jul 2009 12:14:59 GMT

Jacob Bloom:
I make a point of investigating how philosophies effect the people who subscribe to them before I myself start programming my mind to think with that given philosophy.

This is cool, I like this. However,

Jacob Bloom:
I've seen nothing on this forum that makes me want to read your books. Nothing. If anything, it makes me want to be anti-Rothbard. Hayek, Mises and Friedman I'll read. Rothbard and whatever other anarchists I won't. You might ask "why?" Because look at what these ideas have done to you people!! It's horrible.

1. Go to any other political forum on the entire Internet

2. Contest their views vigorously over and over

3. Try to get a better reception than you have received here

I know there are people insulting you a little here and there, and making some statements that sound outlandish to you, but compared to any other Internet forum where you have conflicting views, this is extremely mild. I think under the circumstances we'd get an A for our treatment of you - if we're grading on a curve.

And as for some of the odd statements, hey, this stuff is not exactly easy. People will have crazy ideas or sound crazy if they try to explain their views in short form. You've already adequately shown that, and some have attacked you for it. I have not, because I know people accidentally tend to sound crazy when talking about the dark, unexplored corners of the political world. For the same reason, I would not condemn anarchy based on your reception here. Go to DailyKos.com and try to get anything close to the relatively patient treatment you're getting here. I personally wish people would be much more patient, but compared to other sites we're paragons of discourse here.

Re: You guys are right

AJ — Fri, 03 Jul 2009 11:58:26 GMT

Jacob Bloom:
I really truly believe that those weaknesses will prevent a free market from being able to supply law, order and security to a society of people that's larger than...maybe 1000 people. If you're going to have a group of millions of people, you need to have a centralization of force.

If human weaknesses will prevent a free market from working, your solution is to put those same weak humans in a monopoly position?(!!!)

Re: You guys are right

Daniel — Fri, 03 Jul 2009 01:21:01 GMT

Jacob Bloom:
...
But I thought I'd try to be humble and admit that I realize that ... what you were saying was right.

...

Yes. We know we were right.

Re: You guys are right

Mlee — Fri, 03 Jul 2009 00:55:25 GMT

Psycopath's tend to have a VERY high time preference. Although to be honest, I doubt that Jacob is one, for various reasons.