Hi, I'm new.

Reply

Stephanie Bond replied on Wed, May 6 2009 3:02 AM

rated by 0 users

wilderness:

Stephanie Bond:

wilderness:

Stephanie Bond:

 You are coming across as incapable of backing up your assertion that your way actually works, since you all keep evading/ignoring my requests for a proper explanation.

I don't know.  I came up with an answer but it was ignored.  And my answer works.  I see it everyday and night, and it works fairly well, except for the State intervening, but that aside...

Forget the State intervening. This is taking the anarcho-capitalist method at face value - I'm asking how do you deal with someone who doesn't abide by the NAP, and there's a judgment against him to pay restitution, which he is also ignoring. What happens next in the anarcho-capitalist's world?

    Same thing that happens now.  What makes you think the routine would change?  People that desire to be police, judges, and attorney's just don't disappear cause the State is gone.  If those careers are still being offered, and I would say the people that currently perform these jobs have an interest in these jobs still being here.  It's what they do.  It's their job.  Just look around you.  People's desires don't have to change just cause the State left.  You have such an interest in making sure law and order presides.  I'm sure others are around just like you.  You would make sure everything worked out "objectively" in your area.  You're not asking of anything new.  You're asking for individuals to shape up or ship out.  Government is just a status symbol, nothing else.  The ideas and desire are in the people themselves.  What comes out of the people from their hearts and mind is what makes or breaks anything.

 

Attorneys are private enterprise now.

Your answer doesn't follow the case all the way through.

What happens when someone initiates force? How do you deal with it? How do you enforce the NAP? How do you make someone pay what they agreed to pay? How do you deal with rape, murder, fraud?

Reply

Stephanie Bond replied on Wed, May 6 2009 3:12 AM

rated by 0 users

wilderness:

Stephanie Bond:

Government is also an objective means of protecting property rights (via registration of ownership). That would be part of how the idyllic picture you paint would come about. Orderly transfer of property from one person to another relies on objective proof of ownership.

   Your government just grew, again.  Now it has officials getting records on ownership and they keep these registrations in a building so you have people going out recording and keeping these records.  Hmm, isn't that somewhat similar to the IRS without tax part.  And local townships do this now with deeds.  So now this monopoly government will do it not even locally anymore but on a grand scale.  This government of yours is almost the same as the current one in size.  It's getting there.  I'll need to show a tally in another post one of this moments.

How about a tally of all the things the government is no longer doing.

It's not providing "free" education, health care, social security, welfare, roads, road maintenance, swimming pools, bridges, energy, tourism, unemployment insurance, old age pension, bailouts!, garbage collection, subsidies, housing. Just to name a few off the top of my head.

It is no longer enforcing tariffs, quotas, minimum wage, mandatory employer pension contributions, zoning laws, age of majority.

It is no longer collecting income tax, sales tax, payroll tax, property tax, inheritance tax, capital gains tax, and whatever other taxes there are.

The only job it is supposed to be doing is protecting individual rights. It is not supposed to be an initiator of force.It has no business interfering in the economy as the preceding lists demonstrate it now does, in a myriad of ways.

Reply

Stephanie Bond replied on Wed, May 6 2009 3:28 AM

rated by 0 users

liberty student:

Stephanie Bond:

BINGO! If private companies are enforcing judgments, are they going to give up their private status so they can be open to scrutiny? I doubt it.

They are scrutinzed by their clients.  Unhappy clients will use a different private company.  After all of this, you don't understand how private economies work?  Wow....

Oh there's a relief. The clients are scrutinizing them. That really relieves my concerns....NOT.

How about the victims of your "clients"? How about the guy whose door you broke down to retrieve stolen goods, only you've targeted the wrong person? He's not your client. What is he supposed to do, hire his own thug to break down your door, your client's? Your system is subjective through and through.

liberty student:

Stephanie Bond:

AND "NO" to tax - there is no tax in my scenario. Government is voluntarily funded. It still has to account for how it spends that money.

What if no one gives your government money to run the army of thugs?  Seems like your government would be bankrupt.

Yep.

liberty student:

 

Stephanie Bond:

Private enterprise needs to be free from government intervention, which means it must be free to BE private.

All enterprise is private.  Having children, building a home, selling marijuana (no need for registration, thank you very much), selling sex, having sex, blocking a punch, driving a car, building a bomb, or treating a disease.  All activity is private Steph.  Only a socialist would argue otherwise and I think it's becoming dreadfully apparent, that while you have lofty utopian goals, you are a soft socialist.  You want central power, you want to remove the private sector from certain areas of life and you want to limit free choice and free interaction.

You're not the first to make this mistake with good intentions, and you won't be the last. But I think it is high time you were honest about the logical implications of the system you are proposing.  It does not lead to liberty.  It does lead to tyranny.

Ah yes - buiilding a bomb. You do that. You build your bomb, since that's actually all you are really interested in, isn't it? Be honest. Everything else is just a cover for running amok.

There's a good reason "anarchy" is defined as a state of lawlessness and disorder. See also "misgoverned, chaotic."

See, the end result of objective law and a free market may APPEAR to be anarchic, but in fact it is not, because there is a mechanism to deal with those who break the law. In your system there is none.

The separation of state and the economy is vital to achieve prosperity. The eradication of all government, however, will achieve the opposite of what you claim.

Sorry, but you are wrong on this. Individual rights must be recognized and respected by law. They are not goods to be marketed.

Reply

wilderness replied on Wed, May 6 2009 6:30 AM

rated by 0 users

Stephanie Bond:

wilderness:

Stephanie Bond:

wilderness:

Stephanie Bond:

 You are coming across as incapable of backing up your assertion that your way actually works, since you all keep evading/ignoring my requests for a proper explanation.

I don't know.  I came up with an answer but it was ignored.  And my answer works.  I see it everyday and night, and it works fairly well, except for the State intervening, but that aside...

Forget the State intervening. This is taking the anarcho-capitalist method at face value - I'm asking how do you deal with someone who doesn't abide by the NAP, and there's a judgment against him to pay restitution, which he is also ignoring. What happens next in the anarcho-capitalist's world?

    Same thing that happens now.  What makes you think the routine would change?  People that desire to be police, judges, and attorney's just don't disappear cause the State is gone.  If those careers are still being offered, and I would say the people that currently perform these jobs have an interest in these jobs still being here.  It's what they do.  It's their job.  Just look around you.  People's desires don't have to change just cause the State left.  You have such an interest in making sure law and order presides.  I'm sure others are around just like you.  You would make sure everything worked out "objectively" in your area.  You're not asking of anything new.  You're asking for individuals to shape up or ship out.  Government is just a status symbol, nothing else.  The ideas and desire are in the people themselves.  What comes out of the people from their hearts and mind is what makes or breaks anything.

Attorneys are private enterprise now.

Your answer doesn't follow the case all the way through.

    My answer is right before your eyes in the real world.  What do you mean follow it all the way through?  The only way that can happen is to write a whole book on what people do day to day.

Stephanie Bond:

    What happens when someone initiates force? How do you deal with it? How do you enforce the NAP? How do you make someone pay what they agreed to pay? How do you deal with rape, murder, fraud?

call 9/11  Don't you know?  I'm being serious are you?  You didn't even read this post if you're asking me these questions again.  Apparently you don't know what a police, attorney, and judge are.

Reply

wilderness replied on Wed, May 6 2009 6:40 AM

rated by 0 users

Stephanie Bond:

wilderness:

Stephanie Bond:

Government is also an objective means of protecting property rights (via registration of ownership). That would be part of how the idyllic picture you paint would come about. Orderly transfer of property from one person to another relies on objective proof of ownership.

   Your government just grew, again.  Now it has officials getting records on ownership and they keep these registrations in a building so you have people going out recording and keeping these records.  Hmm, isn't that somewhat similar to the IRS without tax part.  And local townships do this now with deeds.  So now this monopoly government will do it not even locally anymore but on a grand scale.  This government of yours is almost the same as the current one in size.  It's getting there.  I'll need to show a tally in another post one of this moments.

How about a tally of all the things the government is no longer doing.

It's not providing "free" education, health care, social security, welfare, roads, road maintenance, swimming pools, bridges, energy, tourism, unemployment insurance, old age pension, bailouts!, garbage collection, subsidies, housing. Just to name a few off the top of my head.

It is no longer enforcing tariffs, quotas, minimum wage, mandatory employer pension contributions, zoning laws, age of majority.

It is no longer collecting income tax, sales tax, payroll tax, property tax, inheritance tax, capital gains tax, and whatever other taxes there are.

The only job it is supposed to be doing is protecting individual rights. It is not supposed to be an initiator of force.It has no business interfering in the economy as the preceding lists demonstrate it now does, in a myriad of ways.

    Well, I have this tally going cause your scenario began with just a defensive force of people (army).  Now it's up to prosecutors, registrar personnel (for numerous kinds of properties including houses and cars), judges, police force, army(navy, air force, marines), FBI, Internal Investigation Unit, factories to make weapons, border patrol (including passport registry),  and more to come I'm sure.

    Sure this list is shorter but you hold all the guns. 

Reply

wilderness replied on Wed, May 6 2009 6:42 AM

rated by 0 users

Stephanie Bond:

liberty student:

Stephanie Bond:

BINGO! If private companies are enforcing judgments, are they going to give up their private status so they can be open to scrutiny? I doubt it.

They are scrutinzed by their clients.  Unhappy clients will use a different private company.  After all of this, you don't understand how private economies work?  Wow....

Oh there's a relief. The clients are scrutinizing them. That really relieves my concerns....NOT.

How about the victims of your "clients"? How about the guy whose door you broke down to retrieve stolen goods, only you've targeted the wrong person? He's not your client. What is he supposed to do, hire his own thug to break down your door, your client's? Your system is subjective through and through.

Stephanie yours is subjective.  Yours is not objective.  Those are people governing your government correct?  I say this cause again, you try to use objective as a justification, but without qualifiers what you mean by objective could be anything.  It's near meaningless without qualifiers.

Reply

wilderness replied on Wed, May 6 2009 6:45 AM

rated by 0 users

Knight_of_BAAWA:

Tell me, Steph: how is defense so special that it requires a monopoly?

I want to hear the answer to this Stephanie.

Reply

liberty student replied on Wed, May 6 2009 10:44 AM

rated by 0 users

Stephanie Bond:

No, you don't have to register anything if you don't want to. It just makes transfers of property between two arm's length people very very easy. You need to re-think your attitude towards government. My kind is not an involuntary one. You can refrain from registering your property. There's nobody going to force you. You just may have a tough time selling something you say you own.

This is basically extortion.  Use my system or you won't be happy.  I can register with someone else.  No one needs a monopoly on registration.

Stephanie Bond:

No it isn't and you're being very lame. You aren't reading all my posts, obviously. Not only that, but you must not be old enough to have transacted business in the real world. You cannot see beyond the idea you have decided is what must be achieved = anarchy.

First, this is an Ad Hominem, hopefully you understand it is a logical fallacy, and stop doing it.  Second, I have been operating my own business since 2002, and I have been in business (management) since 1996.  So please don't lecture me on the real world.  When it comes to credentials, I don't need them, but I have them.

Anarchy is freedom.  At this point on this forum, you should be able to recognize that anarchy is absolute freedom, and any suggestion less than that (ie. yours) is a restraint on freedom.  I am only committed to anarchy insofar as I support non-violence and voluntary exchange as absolutes.  So to attack my position on anarchy, is to attack these things.

Which further backs up why I claimed you were a soft socialist.  You are a planner, an authoritarian.  You're someone who thinks man can be mathematically modeled, that one size fits all, and that everyone needs to agree in order for things to work smoothly.

I am not the one compromising the ideals of liberty.  I am not the one proposing systems of authority and control.  And I am certainly not the one lacking in morals or imagination.

Stephanie Bond:

What I'm talking about is government's role in protecting individual rights in that free market.

All rights are derived from property rights.  Do you understand this?

Stephanie Bond:

Voluntary exchange to mutual benefit is the very lynchpin of the free market, indeed of the entire country.

Which country?  Canada or the US?  Why do countries even matter?  They are just legal fictions, lines drawn on a map.  With regards to voluntary exchange, you are the one proposing monopoly, not me.  Check your premises.

Stephanie Bond:

Again I'll ask you to explain how your system deals with transactions that do not conclude as agreed.

This is a strawman because we both (should) know that it is impossible to predict the outcome of a free market.  If you do not understand this, it's time for you to get into some Austrian Economics.  The entire notion of planning what an economy needs, or forcing it into a vision is flawed.  It is how all tyrannies begin as populist movements.  You want to make the world a better place, so you propose government.  The group with the monopoly power of the gun.  And from there it is all downhill.

Stephanie Bond:

Wow. You don't understand much about how the protection of individual rights actually occurs, do you?

If you imply there is only one way to protect rights, no I don't understand that.  I believe there are many ways to protect many interpretations of rights.  As long as it is voluntary, it's ok.

I realize I have mounted the strongest challenge to you, because unlike the others I am not fixated on arguing definitions, and I appreciate your replying.  It's courageous, even if you're holding a lot of false premises as true.  Maybe we can work through some of them, expose the fallacies and get to the point where I learn something interesting from you because that will be the payoff for me in this scenario.

Reply

ladyattis replied on Wed, May 6 2009 10:46 AM

rated by 0 users

Stephanie Bond:

Government is also an objective means of protecting property rights (via registration of ownership).

First, lets drop the word objective. Objective is very specific in its uses when considering all possible arguments. It means something is an object, independent both of person observing and of the entities surrounding. Also, government isn't a means, it's an institution. So, instead lets rephrase the sentence as such: a government is an institution which has the means to protect property rights by enumeration of valid ownership via the method of registration of property and its owners. It's a big lengthy, but it clarifies what is suggested, or atleast what I conceive of as suggested.

The objectivity only comes from the fact that property and its owners are objects of observation, thus the only real objective method/means of protection of property is the individual and collective agreement to respect and defend property from theft and vandalism. Whether you call it government (as an institution) or Joe's Insurance Emporium the behavior is still the same; no member of the possible collective together or alone cannot initiate force. Which also means it's not really a government as it cannot initiate force to force others to join it (without violating property and associated rights) nor exclude others from forming their own collectives/organizations to fulfill similar defense of their property(ies). So, it's not a monopoly, these organizations/collectives, and these organizations can't really retaliate either beyond repelling an aggressor, so they're not definitionally what you call government. Especially since government by definition is an enforced monopoly with full right to utilize retaliatory force (and so on).

Stephanie Bond:

However,even if everyone were conforming in a given region, is everyone on the planet confoming to the NAP?

If one doesn't aggress on another then one is defaulting to NAP, implicitly. NAP is simply a description of a range of human behaviors that lead to stable societies, it's the bare bones of what it takes to keep them together. Without it, there's no possible way humans or similar animals can effectively survive. And in situations where there are those in the population that disregards NAP, two basic ways exist to deal with the problem with both summarized in the previous paragraph.

So, I don't see any logic in asserting government is either necessary or moral to have in existence.

Reply

Spideynw replied on Wed, May 6 2009 11:02 AM

rated by 0 users

liberty student:

because unlike the others I am not fixated on arguing definitions,

Semantic arguments are some of the most important arguments in philosophy.

Reply

liberty student replied on Wed, May 6 2009 11:54 AM

rated by 0 users

Stephanie Bond:

Oh there's a relief. The clients are scrutinizing them. That really relieves my concerns....NOT.

You do realize that this is an anti-free market statement?  You don't think clients can choose the firms they deal with, but somehow those people can choose the government they deal with?

The entire notion of the free market is customer empowerment.  It's the foundation of a free society (voluntary exchange).  That you scoff at it says a lot about your understanding of freedom and liberty.

Stephanie Bond:

How about the victims of your "clients"? How about the guy whose door you broke down to retrieve stolen goods, only you've targeted the wrong person? He's not your client. What is he supposed to do, hire his own thug to break down your door, your client's? Your system is subjective through and through.

Why would anyone break down anyone's door?  There is no incentive to use violence in retribution when the goal is RESTITUTION.

Yes it is subjective, in that these situations in most cases will be resolved voluntarily, either person-to-person, pda-to-pda or some variant thereof.  The escalation to violence is something a monopoly state, which has no incentive to provide peace, would do.

Stephanie Bond:

I'll say the same to you. Be honest about your system - it leads to lynch mobs and complete breakdown.

How so?  How does peaceful voluntary interaction lead to complete breakdown?  How does the right to absolutely own private property lead to lynch mobs?

Stephanie Bond:

You have a mistaken belief that everyone will just abide by the NAP without any problems whatsoever.

No, I don't.  But most people will, because it's a natural human thing to cooperate, share and use selection.  You might regard man as inherently evil, in need of a billy club over his head at all times, but my view of humanity is not so myopic.  I believe that man is capable of great things when he is freed from oppression, and that is precisely what anarchism and the NAP are about.  The end of "institutionalized" oppression, which ironically, is exactly what you are proposing.  Institutions that have a monopoly on force.

Stephanie Bond:

The workings of the free market cannot cure those kinds of problems.

As I said, a socialist.  Translated, you just said : "Freedom cannot cure those kinds of problems"

Stephanie Bond:

Ah yes - buiilding a bomb. You do that. You build your bomb, since that's actually all you are really interested in, isn't it?

Stephanie, that's a strawman, which is a logical fallacy.   I thought you were about being rational?

Stephanie Bond:

Everything else is just a cover for running amok.

Non-violence = running amok?  How much longer will you continue to repeat this blatantly false assertion?  You're the objectivist, right?  You're the one who holds rational thought to the highest point?  Then why are you using fallacies and plain lies over and over in this debate?

Stephanie Bond:

There's a good reason "anarchy" is defined as a state of lawlessness and disorder. See also "misgoverned, chaotic."

Anarchy is without rulers.  Every man rules himself.  Anarchy is not lawless, and is based on spontaneous (not state enforced) order.  People voluntarily choose to work together, they are not forced to work together.

Stephanie Bond:

See, the end result of objective law and a free market may APPEAR to be anarchic, but in fact it is not, because there is a mechanism to deal with those who break the law. In your system there is none.

You haven't proposed a free market.  You are proposing central command.

And the assertion that "my system" has no mechanism is another irrational claim.

Stephanie Bond:

The separation of state and the economy is vital to achieve prosperity.

Just eliminate the state, it's deadweight on free people.

Stephanie Bond:

The eradication of all government, however, will achieve the opposite of what you claim.

Prove it.

Stephanie Bond:

Sorry, but you are wrong on this. Individual rights must be recognized and respected by law. They are not goods to be marketed.

I'm not wrong because you're only making assertions.  And most of your assertions are either logical fallacies, or dishonest misrepresentations.

All rights are property rights.  And all property is scarce, hence the need for markets to service them.  This is basic, basic, basic economics.

The free market is not some ideal.  It is the rational structure for dealing with a world of scarce resources.  I think a mistake you may be making is putting ideals ahead of rationality.

Reply

liberty student replied on Wed, May 6 2009 12:03 PM

rated by 0 users

Spideynw:

liberty student:

because unlike the others I am not fixated on arguing definitions,

Semantic arguments are some of the most important arguments in philosophy.

Stephanie has done a great job of shifting and obfuscating definitions.  Rather than try to corner her on what her terms mean, it is much more effective to directly challenge her ideas, regardless of what she calls them.

Reply

wilderness replied on Wed, May 6 2009 12:10 PM

rated by 0 users

liberty student:

Spideynw:

liberty student:

because unlike the others I am not fixated on arguing definitions,

Semantic arguments are some of the most important arguments in philosophy.

Stephanie has done a great job of shifting and obfuscating definitions.  Rather than try to corner her on what her terms mean, it is much more effective to directly challenge her ideas, regardless of what she calls them.

 

I think her idea is known to most of us here.  I called it a Military State.  You called it central command.  She'll say it's voluntary, but meanwhile it holds the monopoly on force.  Beatin' a dead horse, etc, etc...

Reply

JackCuyler replied on Wed, May 6 2009 6:17 PM

rated by 0 users

Stephanie Bond:

You have a mistaken belief that everyone will just abide by the NAP without any problems whatsoever.

You have the paradoxical belief that the NAP must be violated in order to protect people from violations of the NAP.

Stephanie Bond:

The separation of state and the economy is vital to achieve prosperity.

Agreed.  However....

Stephanie Bond:

Individual rights must be recognized and respected by law. They are not goods to be marketed.

Agree.  The protection of those rights, however, is a service, and therefore may be sold on the market. Looks like another paradox.

Reply

Stephanie Bond replied on Fri, May 15 2009 9:26 PM

rated by 0 users

What I mean by following it all the way through is, synthesize all the examples and come up with the essence of the sequence of events.  How does it get to the point where force is necessary to compel the wrongdoer to make good on his wrongdoing?

How it works now is first of all the allegations must be proven in a court of law. There are two standards, one for civil and a more exacting one for criminal. In civil,  proof is determined on a balance of probabilities, whereas in criminal it is beyond a reasonable doubt,.

Determining which side has right on its side and the punishment or remedy that follows as a result is also part of the judge's job. If the accuser is wrong, he has to bear the court costs of the party he wrongly accused. If the accuser is right, then the judge determines the punishment, which requires taking all the facts of the case into account, character references, severity of offense, as well as previous sentences handed to others for similar conduct.

Many court results are appealed by one or other of the parties. When all appeal avenues have been exhausted, there may be a term of imprisonment, or a fine or other damages or monetary awards, for which the guilty party is responsible. The court can order assets to be put into receivership in order to pay the debts.

These are serious outcomes, of course. Also known as sell all you own. 

When smaller sums are involved the non-compliant unsuccessful litigant might choose to disappear rather than pay what he owes. The cost of pursuing a petty offense can outweigh the value of what was taken or ruined.

There is actually a dearth of honest jurisprudence because the cost of litigation has never been properly the onus of the litigants.

Reply

eliotn replied on Fri, May 15 2009 9:39 PM

rated by 0 users

Stephanie Bond:

What I mean by following it all the way through is, synthesize all the examples and come up with the essence of the sequence of events.  How does it get to the point where force is necessary to compel the wrongdoer to make good on his wrongdoing?

How it works now is first of all the allegations must be proven in a court of law. There are two standards, one for civil and a more exacting one for criminal. In civil,  proof is determined on a balance of probabilities, whereas in criminal it is beyond a reasonable doubt,.

Determining which side has right on its side and the punishment or remedy that follows as a result is also part of the judge's job. If the accuser is wrong, he has to bear the court costs of the party he wrongly accused. If the accuser is right, then the judge determines the punishment, which requires taking all the facts of the case into account, character references, severity of offense, as well as previous sentences handed to others for similar conduct.

Many court results are appealed by one or other of the parties. When all appeal avenues have been exhausted, there may be a term of imprisonment, or a fine or other damages or monetary awards, for which the guilty party is responsible. The court can order assets to be put into receivership in order to pay the debts.

These are serious outcomes, of course. Also known as sell all you own. 

When smaller sums are involved the non-compliant unsuccessful litigant might choose to disappear rather than pay what he owes. The cost of pursuing a petty offense can outweigh the value of what was taken or ruined.

There is actually a dearth of honest jurisprudence because the cost of litigation has never been properly the onus of the litigants.

Courts don't have to work exactly this way.

Reply

Carol replied on Fri, May 15 2009 10:12 PM

rated by 0 users

Hello...

I am new in this community....

Hello everyone... :)

Reply

wilderness replied on Fri, May 15 2009 10:25 PM

rated by 0 users

Carol:

Hello...

I am new in this community....

 

Hello everyone... :)

Hello!