As I said in the very first post in this thread, it seems that evolution has a fundamental problem with certain types of cooperative behavior. Maybe you should take this as a clue, perhaps the use of force is fundamentally the only solution.
Do you befriend and associate with people that hold this opinion? Or did you not mean that in the general sense?
Is your sense of ethics guided by your perception of evolution?
Ermmm, I don’t fully understand your query… But what I meant was that perhaps mother nature is trying to tell us something. Perhaps a search for a solution without threats of violence is futile.
Not at all. But my sense of what systems are possible may may be.
Or perhaps not. Perhaps this is meaningless twaddle. Just maybe.
Look, if you want to live in some monolithic state, feel free to do so. Leave non-consenting parties out of it and enjoy all the state you want.
Well it is possible for me to rape, murder and pillage. Those are all possibilities.
I think you know where I am going with this. Either the use of force is right, or it is wrong. Making appeals to objective efficiency/evolution (efficiency is subjective btw) isn’t a sound tactic for sidestepping that.
So you are saying there is a class of problems that might exist that might require initiatory violence to solve. I agree there are some, like how do you enslave someone, you require initiatory violence to solve this problem. And my question was just: “Would you voluntarily interact with someone who believes initiatory force is required to solve problems?”
The problem is that always and everywhere, theroghout history, all over the world and even throughout the animal kingdom(!), freeloaders are disliked by the majority. Minor freeloading is liable to lead to minor irritaion amongst the majority and major freeloading is liable to lead to major irritation amonst the majority. Is it really surprising that its so difficult to find a system where freeloaders are immune to violence?
That system is ever present. It is called government.
Yes.
If your question was “Would you voluntarily interact with someone who believes initiatory force is required to solve [some exceptional] problems?” then my answer would be yes.
If your question was “Would you voluntarily interact with someone who believes initiatory force is required to solve [most] problems?” then my answer would be “No, I’d try to avoid that type of person if at all possible”.
So this was never really about street cleaners or how are roads going to be built - no surprise. I had asked you how you would build a road and you never answered that. Your focus has been on something else it would seem.
The use of force is right or wrong depending on what it is used for. If its used to deprive an old lady of her purse so that you can spend the money on drugs then its probably wrong. If its used to prevent a mugger from taking an old lady’s purse then its probably right.
And why on earth is force the only way to deal with problems? Since when is it a “solution”? I guess in the way that smashing a TV that won’t show an image is a “solution” to that problem…
The initiation of force. You know exactly what I am talking about, please don’t try to make this about semantics.
Either you support aggression, which is the initiation of force, or you do not. Which is it?
Not in the slightest. I had no clue that this discussion would migrate to one about the use of violence.
I didn’t answer your question about road building because you appeared to be playing a game with me. If you want me to answer a long series of questions, you had better tell me the point you are trying to make first otherwise I can not be bothered.
Lol.
Michanomics, your comparison’s and forsight of this comparison is based on the current system of governmental force. Since we can only speculate what a true free market would bring I would attempt to use free utility like services as an example. Home internet for example is an area where the government has for the most part stayed out of.
Government utility provision |
Private utility provision |
Internet Utility Comparisson |
|---|---|---|
No easy way to switch from one provider to another. |
No easy way to switch from one provider to another. |
Easy to switch providers |
Competition between providers is hampered.* |
Competition between providers is hampered.** |
Competition is so great that internet is largely cheap and available |
Now lets consider your first 5 points in more detail.
-
Change - Your the first person I’ve heard call the market slow. Your comparisson is confusing in the respect that we have no idea what it relates to utility provisioning. We also don’t know what your measuring as being slow.
-
Economy Scale - Again, another vague statement. We don’t know if large economic scale means big government, or big economy. In a free market you will have a huge economy, with a small if any government.
-
Reptition and Decisions - Decisions made for you is an argument to dictatorship, one which I doubt you would adher to. Your second statement seemed to make what is typically seen in positive light a negative one. The ability of un-coerced free will to purchase what you please. Freedom of choice. If you think blanket decisions are more effecient then you need to read Economic Calculation in a socialist commonwealth.
-
Contracts and Fine Print - We can not know what contracts would look like in a libertarian society. I do not think they would be what we are used to however. I have always argued that you would see large simplification in contracts and the fine print would slowly dissapear. Many of those items are there to protect business’s from agency’s like the FDA. In the absence of things like the FDA the need to create such rediculous contracts goes away. Consumers will then take control and naturally gravitate to contracts which make the most sense to them. So it’s entirely possible that in a free society contracts would be simplified, but we can only speculate.
-
Utility Provider and Force - This makes no sense what so ever. In a free market how could a utility company use force? If you do not pay, you are in actuality stealing from the utility company, it is you who is using force on them. You wouldn’t be imprisoned or anything of that nature, you would simply have your power turned off. Thats not force at all. If you don’t agree to pay the cost you loose the service. If you steal the service you are the initiator of force, not them. In a free society you would also have the choice of moving to a different provider. Perhaps a different provider would have a sign-up deal. Just as easily as you can change your phone company, or move from Comcast to Quest DSL. So all the power is in your hands to deal with the situation responsibly.
I have no idea what you are saying. Force can be good or bad, so how can I “support it or not”? It appears an ill formed question.
I’m not trying to be argumentative, I genuinely have no idea what you are getting at.
Lol. Of course it’s been about violence. I won’t bother explaining anything to you since we know you are incapable of understanding basic concepts.