As I argued below, private property anarchists need to demonstrate that private solutions will work for each branch of government to be privatized. The interesting thing is that each branch presents its own unique challenges. Let's start with law-making. I have defended the view that morality is intersubjective; it works only when there is agreement on what is right or wrong. But at the same time no more is required. Agreement need not presuppose identical moral theories. Nor does it cause relativism; some moral systems and sets of rules are better than others. But if morality, then so is law. First, private -- an in, subjective -- law is an oxymoron. If you think that doing drugs is permitted, and I think it should not be permitted, then no judge can adjudicate our differences: there will be a war to the death as I try to knock the crack pipe from of your hand, and you (perfectly righteously, from your point of view) defend yourself. We must agree on what is right and what is wrong. But, again, we may come from very different directions. A may think using drugs should be permitted, because the natural law says so. B thinks the same, because he is a pragmatic and is skeptical of the success of any drug war, though if he could prevent people from doing drugs at 0 cost, he'd do it. C may be a utilitarian and believe that government paternalism is, as a rule, absurd. The government is not, C thinks, the guardian of the ignorant and stupid populace. And so on. Now the question is, how to establish agreement on a wide range of issues among the citizens of a town or country? Only two ways suggest themselves: either through voluntary agreement or arbitrary legislation. If culture so permits and the administrative unit is small enough, rules are best established through custom, common law trial-and-error, natural law a la Rothbard, or some form of law and economics. But it can be that no agreement can be reached in this manner. Then the state can be useful in imposing law according to, say, majority rule. Even if some disagree, they have to persuade the majority and go through the motions of amending the legal code. At the very least, the law will be uniform over some population, something absolutely crucial to a functioning society. A combination of private and state solutions may be in the stars.
But once the law is however determined, I see no obstacles to competing private judges and arbitration agencies. Reputation will be key. In contracts a particular jurisdiction and judge could be specified. In torts, both parties can agree on a decent judge. It's no accident that ancient Israel, once it was given the "law," did not require the king but had judges only. An elaborate system of private lower and higher courts, appeals courts, rules of recognition, reputation, Consumers Digest reviews, advice from industry experts, etc. will likely arise and will be able to supplant the present regime completely. The state judicial system we have now is entirely unnecessary.
The final stage of any legal process, viz., enforcement, however, is, in my view, impossible to privatize. Once the question of what law is has been settled, and a judicial verdict, rendered, the offender must be overpowered, crushed (not in terms of the severity of punishment, of course, but in the sense of applying the sentence reliably). Only society as a whole, organized and represented by the executive branch of the state, can do so without fail. The community as a whole inflicts the punishment. Here the mayors/governors/etc. are merely tools of society ensuring that the (private) judges' efforts are not wasted. For the offender broke the law governing the behavior of an entire people, and as far as judges are trusted -- and why wouldn't they be, unless there is (infrequent) corruption -- everyone must be united in executing the sentence imposed on the criminal or tortfeasor.
In short, in a city, for example, I envision a government consisting of a part-time city council and a full-time major in command of a few tough deputies.
This analysis suggests that in many disputes anarcho-capitalists and minarchists talk past each other, because they fail to disentangle the different problems posed by each of the three branches of government.
No, there is no "right" to having a judge's verdicts enforced. This is a service provided on the market, and like any other, must be voluntarily acquired. There is no positive right to enforcement. I fail to see how it is "Impossible" to privatize this. I also fail to see how from the fact that agreement may not be feasible with regard to the content of the law, that the non sequitur that a state must therefore exist to force it upon others whether they like it or not holds any water; a mere argumentum ad populum.
-Jon
To darkness I condemn you...
dchernik: As I argued below, private property anarchists need to demonstrate that private solutions will work for each branch of government to be privatized.
As I argued below, private property anarchists need to demonstrate that private solutions will work for each branch of government to be privatized.
That's shifting the burden of proof. It is up to the statist to show that only a government can provide said solutions. Whether or not the statist (which necessarily includes minarchist) wishes to take up that onus of proof is a different matter. Usually, they don't, And that is the true source of the problem you're attempting to describe. It's not that anarchists and statists talk past each other; it's that the statists refuse to understand that they alone (like theists) have the burden of proof.
Knight_of_BAAWA: dchernik: As I argued below, private property anarchists need to demonstrate that private solutions will work for each branch of government to be privatized. That's shifting the burden of proof. It is up to the statist to show that only a government can provide said solutions. Whether or not the statist (which necessarily includes minarchist) wishes to take up that onus of proof is a different matter. Usually, they don't, And that is the true source of the problem you're attempting to describe. It's not that anarchists and statists talk past each other; it's that the statists refuse to understand that they alone (like theists) have the burden of proof.
Spot on. The comparison is sound.
Let's assess what you've said.
dchernik: As I argued below, private property anarchists need to demonstrate that private solutions will work for each branch of government to be privatized. The interesting thing is that each branch presents its own unique challenges. Let's start with law-making. I have defended the view that morality is intersubjective; it works only when there is agreement on what is right or wrong.
As I argued below, private property anarchists need to demonstrate that private solutions will work for each branch of government to be privatized. The interesting thing is that each branch presents its own unique challenges. Let's start with law-making. I have defended the view that morality is intersubjective; it works only when there is agreement on what is right or wrong.
Incorrect. There are aspects of morality that are subjective (such as drug use or sex or whatever) but there are somethings that cannot be subjective. The one unsubjective aspect of morality is the idea of private property -- at it's basic level the right of self-ownership. You do not own me nor do I own you therefore as self-owners we have the right to determine in what way we shall use our property (our bodies, minds and life). The one thing you cannot do is violate the property right I have in my self nor can I violate yours. It is from this basic idea of self-ownership that all other rights come from. And in fact you can only arrive at what is right and wrong from the understanding that all people are self-owners.
dchernik: But at the same time no more is required. Agreement need not presuppose identical moral theories. Nor does it cause relativism; some moral systems and sets of rules are better than others.
But at the same time no more is required. Agreement need not presuppose identical moral theories. Nor does it cause relativism; some moral systems and sets of rules are better than others.
How is one moral system and set of rules better than others? What makes the moral system of a devout Christian better than that of a self-serving nihilist? Because you say so? I can say the sky is green with purple clouds but that doesn't make it so no matter how hard I protest. Therefore you cannot say one moral system and set of rules, as you put it, is inherently better than another.
dchernik: But if morality, then so is law. First, private -- an in, subjective -- law is an oxymoron. If you think that doing drugs is permitted, and I think it should not be permitted, then no judge can adjudicate our differences: there will be a war to the death as I try to knock the crack pipe from of your hand, and you (perfectly righteously, from your point of view) defend yourself.
But if morality, then so is law. First, private -- an in, subjective -- law is an oxymoron. If you think that doing drugs is permitted, and I think it should not be permitted, then no judge can adjudicate our differences: there will be a war to the death as I try to knock the crack pipe from of your hand, and you (perfectly righteously, from your point of view) defend yourself.
You can hate the crack pipe all you want but you cannot force me to stop smoking crack. To do so would violate my right to self-ownership and self-determination. Therefore your actions, that is knocking the crack pipe from my hand, is a violation of my property rights making you an aggressor.
dchernik: We must agree on what is right and what is wrong. But, again, we may come from very different directions. A may think using drugs should be permitted, because the natural law says so. B thinks the same, because he is a pragmatic and is skeptical of the success of any drug war, though if he could prevent people from doing drugs at 0 cost, he'd do it. C may be a utilitarian and believe that government paternalism is, as a rule, absurd. The government is not, C thinks, the guardian of the ignorant and stupid populace. And so on. Now the question is, how to establish agreement on a wide range of issues among the citizens of a town or country? Only two ways suggest themselves: either through voluntary agreement or arbitrary legislation.
We must agree on what is right and what is wrong. But, again, we may come from very different directions. A may think using drugs should be permitted, because the natural law says so. B thinks the same, because he is a pragmatic and is skeptical of the success of any drug war, though if he could prevent people from doing drugs at 0 cost, he'd do it. C may be a utilitarian and believe that government paternalism is, as a rule, absurd. The government is not, C thinks, the guardian of the ignorant and stupid populace. And so on. Now the question is, how to establish agreement on a wide range of issues among the citizens of a town or country? Only two ways suggest themselves: either through voluntary agreement or arbitrary legislation.
Or three -- respect for private property.
dchernik: If culture so permits and the administrative unit is small enough, rules are best established through custom, common law trial-and-error, natural law a la Rothbard, or some form of law and economics. But it can be that no agreement can be reached in this manner.
If culture so permits and the administrative unit is small enough, rules are best established through custom, common law trial-and-error, natural law a la Rothbard, or some form of law and economics. But it can be that no agreement can be reached in this manner.
The only "law" you need is thus: You cannot violate my property neither can I violate yours. Thus you have solved all of the problems. I can do drugs because it is my right to destroy my body if I want. You can live clean and exercise because you have the right to build up your body. I have the right to grow my grass as high as it will go because I own it. You have the right to mow it every week for that same reason.
dchernik: Then the state can be useful in imposing law according to, say, majority rule.
Then the state can be useful in imposing law according to, say, majority rule.
You must then explain how the "majority" is superior to the decisions of the individual? What makes the beliefs of 10,000 people better than 10? If "majority rule" is the guide post by which laws are made then we must then agree that no one can be an atheist, a homosexual, a Buddhist or anything else the "majority" might not like. If the "majority" of the people believe that everyone should be Catholic does that mean you have the right to force all people to be Catholic? If it does not hold true for that argument then it does not hold true for anything else. The "majority" of people might not like Jews either. Does that mean it's ok to kill them and burn them in a furnace?
dchernik: Even if some disagree, they have to persuade the majority and go through the motions of amending the legal code. At the very least, the law will be uniform over some population, something absolutely crucial to a functioning society. A combination of private and state solutions may be in the stars.
Even if some disagree, they have to persuade the majority and go through the motions of amending the legal code. At the very least, the law will be uniform over some population, something absolutely crucial to a functioning society. A combination of private and state solutions may be in the stars.
So again, prove to us by what divine right you have to be dictator to someone who might disagree with you. What makes your beliefs so much more superior to someone else's that you can enslave them and dictate how they should live their life according to your gospel?
dchernik: But once the law is however determined, I see no obstacles to competing private judges and arbitration agencies. Reputation will be key. In contracts a particular jurisdiction and judge could be specified. In torts, both parties can agree on a decent judge. It's no accident that ancient Israel, once it was given the "law," did not require the king but had judges only. An elaborate system of private lower and higher courts, appeals courts, rules of recognition, reputation, Consumers Digest reviews, advice from industry experts, etc. will likely arise and will be able to supplant the present regime completely. The state judicial system we have now is entirely unnecessary.
I agree. The current State run judicial system is entirely unnecessary but so is your insistence that a large group of people can dictate to a smaller group how they ought to live. The only "law" society needs is the law of private property. You cannot punch me in the face because that violates my property right in my self. You cannot steal my car because that is my private property. You cannot pollute the air I breath because it destroys my lungs, which are my private property. You cannot murder me because you are then taking my most valuable possession -- my life. You cannot rape my daughter because you have violated her right to the use of her body by forcing yourself upon her. Thus you can see that courts need only one guiding light in determining a court case: Has this individual violated or aggressed against the private property of another? If there has been no aggression then there is no victim thus there is no crime. A crime must have a victim and without one it is no crime. Thus my "victimless crime" of smoking crack, which harms no one but myself, is no crime at all! You may disagree with my smoking crack but you certainly cannot use force to stop me from doing it. Once you do use force in order to stop me from smoking crack you have just violated my property, aggressed against me, and committed a crime. You are the criminal and I am the victim.
dchernik: The final stage of any legal process, viz., enforcement, however, is, in my view, impossible to privatize. Once the question of what law is has been settled, and a judicial verdict, rendered, the offender must be overpowered, crushed (not in terms of the severity of punishment, of course, but in the sense of applying the sentence reliably). Only society as a whole, organized and represented by the executive branch of the state, can do so without fail.
The final stage of any legal process, viz., enforcement, however, is, in my view, impossible to privatize. Once the question of what law is has been settled, and a judicial verdict, rendered, the offender must be overpowered, crushed (not in terms of the severity of punishment, of course, but in the sense of applying the sentence reliably). Only society as a whole, organized and represented by the executive branch of the state, can do so without fail.
How is that? Please explain why only an "executive" branch can dispense justice?
dchernik: The community as a whole inflicts the punishment.
The community as a whole inflicts the punishment.
Can I not inflict punishment? If you punch me can't I punch you back? If you killed my wife can't I kill you? You assume that there is some kind of "society" in which crimes are committed against. I can assure you there is no such thing as a "crime against society." There are only two actors in the commission of a crime -- the plaintiff and the defendant, or the victim and the aggressor. If you steal from me you have only stolen from me not some ill defined "society." Therefore any punishment you receive must be brought about by me or someone I have so chosen to act for me. If you steal from me I have the right to pursue you myself and retrieve my property or hire another person or agency to do it for me. But I also have the right to not pursue you and forget the matter altogether. Once you are caught it is not "society" that has put you on trial but me, the victim, and any punishment you receive must be geared towards restitution for myself firstly and punishing you secondly.
dchernik: Here the mayors/governors/etc. are merely tools of society ensuring that the (private) judges' efforts are not wasted. For the offender broke the law governing the behavior of an entire people, and as far as judges are trusted -- and why wouldn't they be, unless there is (infrequent) corruption -- everyone must be united in executing the sentence imposed on the criminal or tortfeasor.
Here the mayors/governors/etc. are merely tools of society ensuring that the (private) judges' efforts are not wasted. For the offender broke the law governing the behavior of an entire people, and as far as judges are trusted -- and why wouldn't they be, unless there is (infrequent) corruption -- everyone must be united in executing the sentence imposed on the criminal or tortfeasor.
You use that world "society" again. Society cannot "ensure" anything concerning punishment. Only individuals can. These private judges will have the power and authority to execute the punishment you would so receive because I, the victim, have chosen them to do so. You do not need a "society" or an executive authority to see to it that the orders of the private courts are carried out. The private courts will see to that else they would go out of business.
dchernik: In short, in a city, for example, I envision a government consisting of a part-time city council and a full-time major in command of a few tough deputies. This analysis suggests that in many disputes anarcho-capitalists and minarchists talk past each other, because they fail to disentangle the different problems posed by each of the three branches of government.
Anarchy poses no problems but offers all of the solutions. Minarchist falsely believe that they can protect peoples rights by first violating them. Now that is an oxymoron!
Here is a link to an article I wrote for my blog talking about the moral issues surrounding minarchism.
"It does not require a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless minority keen to set brush fires in people's minds. " -- Samuel Adams.
See Roderick Long's "The Nature of Law," the whole thing, but especially the section in part II titled The Lockean Case Against Locke wherein Roderick uses Locke's own arguments about the executive, legislative and judicial functions of law against him and the state.
See also his "Libertarian Anarchism: Responses to Ten Objections" and "Anarchism as Constitutionalism."
Yours in liberty,Geoffrey Allan Plauché, Ph.D.Adjunct InstructorBuena Vista University
"Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?"(Who watches the watchmen?)-Juvenal, Satires VI.347
C'mon, armchair anarchists, show us that you put your money where your mouth is. Identify an area, where you go and establish an anarcho-capitalist society and live what you are actually preaching!
Bluntly: At least "statists" have spent some effort into putting their ideas into practice. Not that one applauds all the results. But I think that for many years, while not having a perfect world, many people lived happy under their form of government. Where is the effort of the anarchists (anarcho capitalists) to do something similar? Are they to lazy or are they afraid their experiment is going to fail due to [put your favorite blame or excuse here]?.
Perhaps one should start a thread on founding an anarchists colony or something like that. Possibly some anarchists can pool their resources and get an island in the indian ocean, where they can get a free trade zone - or what about moving to Somalia?
I find the comparison with theists quite amusing, since in general religions are derived from a revelation and not from empirical or rational evidence.
earthmoving
... Regardless, where the burden of proof would be, what's the problem with empirically proving that one is actually right?
February 17 - 1600 - Giordano Bruno is burnt alive by the catholic church. Aquinas : "much more reason is there for heretics, as soon as they are convicted of heresy, to be not only excommunicated but even put to death."
Geoffrey Allan Plauche: See Roderick Long's "The Nature of Law," the whole thing, but especially the section in part II titled The Lockean Case Against Locke wherein Roderick uses Locke's own arguments about the executive, legislative and judicial functions of law against him and the state. See also his "Libertarian Anarchism: Responses to Ten Objections" and "Anarchism as Constitutionalism."
I thought that the Lockean case against Locke was brilliant when I stumbled upon it.
Torsten: Regardless, where the burden of proof woud be, what's the problem with empirically proving that one is actually right? C'mon, armchair anarchists, show us that you put your money where your mouth is. Identify an area, where you go and establish an anarcho-capitalist society and live what you are actually preaching!
Regardless, where the burden of proof woud be, what's the problem with empirically proving that one is actually right?
Which claim is it, exactly, that you want proven? Market anarchists don't make any claims to a system of how to organize society, besides speculation on some possibilities. We claim that markets provide solutions to problems at a cost less than the cost of living with the problem, or of individually solving the problem, whenever it is possible to do so. That's been well proven, in fact, it's tautological - it's the baked into the definition of voluntary exchange and free markets.
Of course there are problems for which no known solution is available at lower cost, and in such a circumstance, nobody would prefer that the problem be "solved".
What you really want proven is that anarchy can solve problems for which no solution is known, or no known solution is worth the cost. Statistst commonly claim that governments can do that, so I guess it's natural to want to apply the same impossible standard to any proposed alternative, except that government is actually never held to that standard - because cost is always hidden and/or explicitly removed from the analysis - and could never live up to it if applied to them.
As to your advice to just go and establish an anarcho-capitalist society, that's what agorism is all about. The problem is that there are a lot of people that are actively working to force us not to do so. It makes it harder, but not impossible in the long run - that's one of the problems a free market will be very good at providing solutions to. To that end, will you lobby your government to stop interfering? The results would speak for themselves, which is a major part of the reason the elected racketeers are so eager to put a stop to it.
The state won't go away once enough people want the state to go away, the state will effectively disappear once enough people no longer care that much whether it stays or goes. We don't need a revolution, we need millions of them.
Torsten: Regardless, where the burden of proof woud be, what's the problem with empirically proving that one is actually right?
Why does one need to when one does not have the burden of proof? I see no reason to do it.
Torsten:C'mon, armchair anarchists, show us that you put your money where your mouth is. Identify an area, where you go and establish an anarcho-capitalist society and live what you are actually preaching!
Why should we?
Torsten:Bluntly: At least "statists" have spent some effort into putting their ideas into practice.
And look at where their ideas have gotten us, especially when they claim it is empirical evidence that a state makes life better, etc.
Torsten:I find the comparison with theists quite amusing, since in general religions are derived from a revelation and not from empirical or rational evidence.
And yet it's precisely the same from burden-of-proof standpoint. I hope you're not verging on a special pleading fallacy.
Bad replies so far, bad. Except for the pointer to Long's work. Now the main point of contention seems to be my claim that we must have a rudimentary state to enforce judicial decisions. Consider this problem: a private protection agency breaks the law. It is sued and loses. Now who is going to enforce the verdict? In my scheme, on the other hand, if the mayor is sued and loses, the community can take the police power away from him, e.g., through the city council's impeaching and removing him.
The city council in my understanding would be "the legislator of last resort," when private law-making negotiations have gotten nowhere. It should be appropriately limited in powers. So, you see the pattern: the judicial branch can be fully privatized; the legislative branch, partially privatized; and the executive branch must remain monopolized.
The burden of proof is on the "statist"? Get out of here! Do you want to find the truth here or "win an argument," especially with such a crude sleight of hand?
dchernik:The city council in my understanding would be "the legislator of last resort," when private law-making negotiations have gotten nowhere.
Then your understanding isn't very deep. The "legislator of last resort" is me and my gun, or you and yours. There's no way around that, it's a simple fact of reality. Let anybody, claim of legitimacy or no, push someone farther than he's willing to take, and he has no further recourse, then he's going to take matters into his own hands. The question is not what the "last resort" consists of, it's how to minimize the necessity of resorting to it.
Your attempt to substitute an artificial agency of last resort for the one nature provides is definitively refuted by:
dchernik:It should be appropriately limited in powers.
And I should be able to squeeze gold nuggets out of my butt.
If your theory requires an impossibility, then your theory is impossible.
dchernik:Do you want to find the truth here or "win an argument,"
It's quite presumptuous to claim that you are assisting anyone in finding the truth. Either you are trying to "win an argument" and convince the rest of us to accept your false notions, for reasons of your own, or you are yourself attempting to find the truth, and your post was a plea for help. My responses are based on an assuption of the latter.
> How is one moral system and set of rules better than others? What makes the moral system of a devout Christian better than that of a self-serving nihilist? Because you say so? I can say the sky is green with purple clouds but that doesn't make it so no matter how hard I protest. Therefore you cannot say one moral system and set of rules, as you put it, is inherently better than another.
Do you contradict yourself when you write further on that "You cannot violate my property neither can I violate yours."? Apparently, for you a legal system in which private property rights are respected is better than one in which they are not respected.
> You can hate the crack pipe all you want but you cannot force me to stop smoking crack. To do so would violate my right to self-ownership and self-determination. Therefore your actions, that is knocking the crack pipe from my hand, is a violation of my property rights making you an aggressor.
What if I don't think of myself as an aggressor but as someone doing God's work preventing you from hurting yourself? The point I'm trying to make is that it doesn't matter whether my ethical system is good or bad, true or false, as long as we have an agreement. On the other hand, it doesn't matter if my legal theory is perfectly sound if we don't have agreement. In that case cooperation breaks down.
So, I am not assisting anyone in finding the truth? My arguments are completely worthless? I've put what seemed like an interesting idea out there for you guys to evaluate. It's up to you now what you do with it.
dchernik: Bad replies so far, bad.
Bad replies so far, bad.
By all means, please, explain WHY these are all bad replies. You can't just SAY they are bad replies. Prove it. Back it with something.
dchernik: Except for the pointer to Long's work. Now the main point of contention seems to be my claim that we must have a rudimentary state to enforce judicial decisions. Consider this problem: a private protection agency breaks the law. It is sued and loses. Now who is going to enforce the verdict? In my scheme, on the other hand, if the mayor is sued and loses, the community can take the police power away from him, e.g., through the city council's impeaching and removing him.
Except for the pointer to Long's work. Now the main point of contention seems to be my claim that we must have a rudimentary state to enforce judicial decisions. Consider this problem: a private protection agency breaks the law. It is sued and loses. Now who is going to enforce the verdict? In my scheme, on the other hand, if the mayor is sued and loses, the community can take the police power away from him, e.g., through the city council's impeaching and removing him.
Companies don't commit crimes, people do. You hold the person(s) accountable for the crime. The market will punish the company.
dchernik: The city council in my understanding would be "the legislator of last resort," when private law-making negotiations have gotten nowhere. It should be appropriately limited in powers. So, you see the pattern: the judicial branch can be fully privatized; the legislative branch, partially privatized; and the executive branch must remain monopolized.
And yet you provide no proof of that claim.
dchernik: The burden of proof is on the "statist"? Get out of here! Do you want to find the truth here or "win an argument," especially with such a crude sleight of hand?
You came here making the claims for your particular view point but provided no real argument to back them up. Provide some form of evidence that your system is better than ours. You made the claim, not us, so back it up.
dchernik: Do you contradict yourself when you write further on that "You cannot violate my property neither can I violate yours."? Apparently, for you a legal system in which private property rights are respected is better than one in which they are not respected.
Yes, because that is the nature of PRIVATE property. Of course if you live in a communal society which does not regard property as private then it would be impossible to violate someones property since the property belongs to everyone. So what do you advocate -- private or communal property? If you advocate private property then by its nature property must be protected. If you advocate communal property (which only works if EVERYONE agrees that all property belongs to everyone) then property cannot be violated and need not be respected. Private property protection solves all of our problems whereas communal property only creates more problems and solves nothing.
dchernik: What if I don't think of myself as an aggressor but as someone doing God's work preventing you from hurting yourself? The point I'm trying to make is that it doesn't matter whether my ethical system is good or bad, true or false, as long as we have an agreement. On the other hand, it doesn't matter if my legal theory is perfectly sound if we don't have agreement. In that case cooperation breaks down.
My question to you is this: By what right do you have to tell me how I should live my life? What makes you correct and me wrong? Why are you master and I slave?
I'll go ahead and answer that for you: You have no right to tell me how to live.
dchernik: Now the main point of contention seems to be my claim that we must have a rudimentary state to enforce judicial decisions.
So prove it. What's so special about judicial decisions that they require a state?
Consider this problem: a private protection agency breaks the law. It is sued and loses. Now who is going to enforce the verdict? In my scheme, on the other hand, if the mayor is sued and loses, the community can take the police power away from him, e.g., through the city council's impeaching and removing him.
dchernik:The burden of proof is on the "statist"?
Yes.
dchernik:Get out of here! Do you want to find the truth here or "win an argument,"
They are one and the same. And it's not a crude slight of hand: it's proper argumentation procedure.
Remember: fallacies kill arguments, and fallacies cannot lead you to the truth.
dchernik:What if I don't think of myself as an aggressor but as someone doing God's work preventing you from hurting yourself?
A rose by any other name...
What you think of your actions does not change the nature of them.
dchernik: I've put what seemed like an interesting idea out there for you guys to evaluate. It's up to you now what you do with it.
You put out an old, tired, and thoroughly refuted idea. I decided what to do with it the moment I read it - for the 100th time in various flavors, by the way. It's what to do with you that is the still open question. The answer is largely up to you.
To which I retort: bad OP.
Now the main point of contention seems to be my claim that we must have a rudimentary state to enforce judicial decisions. Consider this problem: a private protection agency breaks the law. It is sued and loses. Now who is going to enforce the verdict? In my scheme, on the other hand, if the mayor is sued and loses, the community can take the police power away from him, e.g., through the city council's impeaching and removing him.
Another private agency. Big deal.
Except, you're advocating the prohibition of competition of free individuals. So yes, the burden is most definitely on you.
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