group hug
Not sure that Hoppe is down with that.
Apples and oranges. I`m not talking about a system that prevents all violations, including from the criminal elements. I am talking about a system where violations are not institutionalised - ie a part of the system itself.
Only if you live in a fantasy world. What is economical is not the only thing that drives humans beings. It is not economical for an Iraqi to stand up, fight the occupation and risk his life, jet plenty stil do it. The economical thing would be to either conform or seek refuge abroad, jet they stay and risk life and limb.
And that is not even taking into account protecting a black guy from racists vandals would be great PR, so it would probably be economical to do it for free, as it would mean free advertisement.
You don`t what are the anarchists as I know them.
What, an insurance company is going to protect the right of a vandal to break windows?
And LOL “it is not a problem”? No, it is not a problem. It is righteous and it is the solution.
Yes enterpreneurs outcompeted the Soviet Union, eh? As I remmember it, it took a horde of people on the streets and some tank commnders that refused obediance to the regime. In other wods it took a revolution. Like it always does.
Nor would violations be as I’m describing it, unless you’re saying that the moment an insurance company violates the NAP aggression becomes “institutionalised”, in which case you’ve twisted the meaning of the word institutionalised.
Only a competing provider of defense would have the resources necessary for what you’re talking about. Needless to say companies do what economical, if not they’re outcompeted.
Any company who marched into a neighbourhood on account of any minor violations of “justice” would have exceedingly high costs. They’d lose customers to the insurer who doesn’t care about the plight of the black homosexual because it’s not economically viable to.
Being seen as an aggressor probably isn’t the best PR for a compan, but ignoring that. The company may have a very good reputation, if it can’t compete with the low costs of the other insurers because it constantly feels the need to march into communities to save oppressed minorities it’s going to go out of business. That sort of behaviour only works when the “business” can socialize its costs (e.g. the state).
But let’s assume that this isn’t an insurance company but a group of philosophically, socially liberal minded anarchists who can’t stand to see the oppression of a negro. Well if they went in there, their insurance provider wouldn’t support them so they’d be left to fight the entire community and their provider of insurance.
Ok, perhaps you meant anarchists in universities. They’re doing slightly more than those caricaturing themselves on Youtube, yes. But they won’t lead the “revolution”.
They’re not going to support it, they’re just going to turn a blind eye.
Because Russia is a great stateless society now. Or not. In reality there was no revolution in Russia, the state apparatus changed hands from being “publicly” owned by a political elite to being “privately” owned by the new corporate elite, who are more often than not the same people. So you tell me, did the Russian “revolution” work?
In any case, those people were out on the streets because they didn’t have enough food. Once again, it comes down to economics. If you really think people are going to risk being shot “for liberty”, you’re clueless. Most of the people on these forums wouldn’t do it, let alone the average man who just wants to put food on the table for his kids.
Probably not. Only hippies group hug. Hippies and communists.
and christian sports teams?
that’s quite the formidable triumvirate
You are caught up in your own private little world. “A competing provider of defense”? Yes only a provider of defense can provide defense. Thats basic logic. But just about anything can be a provider of defense, it does not need to be a for-profit company.
Again, your private little world. Who the hell cares about your insurance providers? Yeah no insurance, whatever. So freaking what? I wipe my arse with your insurance. In anarchy, my clan is my insurance.
And are you insane or something? They arent going to fight no community. They are going to post guards and try to get the vandal to pay for the damages if his identity is known, as authorished by a decision of the victims private court.
Unless you are trying to say your racists have gonne feral and are going to try to smash more of the black guy`s property albeit it is now defended?
Or perhaps I didnt mean those. But you love to stick words into my mouth dont you?
Which contradicts what you said earlier. in this very post of yours “they’d be left to fight the entire community and their provider of insurance”. You can`t even stay consistent within the confines of a single post??
And anyway what is your point now then? So they are going to turn a blind eye? So? What is the point? Why even say that? It`s not like the black guy had reasons to expect anything from an insurance company he was not a client of in the first place.
I pitty your ignorance. And your propensity for going on a tangent. What are you talking about?? Two whole paragraphs of putting words into my mouth? Whoah. Why don`t you just argue this whole deal with yourself then? Just substitute my posts with what you think I would say.
And BTW dont think I didnt notice you conveniantly dodged the possibility I raised that Black Nationalists would get involved for ideological/ethnic sentiment reasons.
As insurers began to work together, their shared focus would be contract enforcement. Now if members of a church agreed not to be homosexual they could perhaps enforce that contract. If an uninsured homosexual got mugged by members of this church, No PDA would defend membres of this church. PDAs which protect homosexuals would have an incentive to stop such violence. As Hoppe describes elsewhere in the Idea of a Private Law Society:
To paraphrase the existence of competition causes a tendency towards libertarianism in relations between PDAs. As such no PDA would agree to defend the rights of the lyncher after obligating itself to this style of libertarianism.
How so? A company that specializes in the production of defense will be the best suited for that task, this is basic economics: the division of labour. If what you’re trying to say is that small, more informal providers of defense would be able to challenge large, multinational insurance companies with vast resources at their disposal, it is you that is caught up in “your own private little world”.
But, out of curiosity, what organizations might have the capability of challenging insurance companies?
Well that’s wonderful, but you and your clan will be up against multinational insurance companies. So, you may well “wipe your arse with insurance” but when I rob your house, if you don’t have insurance everybody is going to turn a blind eye. In other words, you’re on your own.
This is quite the display of childishness though, it would be far easier for you to merely concede the point.
And what, you think the community is going to allow “guards” to be posted outside these houses? Not likely. And if they find the identity of the vandal his provider of insurance will tell them to go away, or else they’re going to be involved in a fight they can’t win.
Not relevant.
If you actually understood what I said, it wouldn’t be inconsistant, so try again.
But that’s the whole point of this discussion, providers of defense won’t always act in a manner that Roderick Long and Aristotle would approve of. The case of the man offering candy to children illustrates this better, but even now we see that producers of defense want to make money. They don’t care about the rights of a black homosexual living in the middle of racist homophobes because it won’t make money. As such that black man has to defend his own rights or he might as well not have any.
If you don’t disagree with this I have to wonder why you picked the argument in the first place.
I pity your inability to debate properly. I didn’t put words in your mouth, you said the Russians acheived revolution because of people on the street. They didn’t, they swapped one set of rulers for another. In fact, that barely even managed that.
So you were wrong about the Russian revolution. It’s funny that AE emphasized the role of the entrepreneur and you fail to apply this to strategy.
I didn’t dodge the issue, I just figured the appropriate reponse was “so would the Klu Klux Klan in that case”, but then I realised things would get very silly if we chose to go down that route. It’s a shame you can’t remain civil.
Why don`t you tell me what has historicaly been by far the most powerful non-statist military force? Maybe it was an insurance company, LOL.
Yeah, except you once again chose to bury your head in the sand rather than face my point. Leave your speculation at the side. How was historicaly law provided when its provision was not monopolised by the state? How is it stil provided in many parts of the world where the state is weak? How is it provided in the hills of Albania? I`ll give you a hint, it again has nothing to do with any insurance companies.
What are you talking about? They dont get a say in wether the black guy allows people on his property. Youre getting worse on property rights by the minute.
LOL. How do you know its a fight they cant win? Actually in a shooting war between economicaly and ideologicaly driven people the second usually tend to win. Particularly when they are in the right.
Youre a big fan of the dictionaries arent you? So why don`t you do me a favour and look up “revolution” will you?
Yeah it`s silly, because your whole premise is absurdly ridicilous. Ku Klux Klan is going to descend on some town to defend the right of a white vandal to destroy property of a black guy?? Only if they are as bad on private property as you are.
I`ll bet my arse your racists would sooner pool money and buy off the black guy to enjoy their segregation rather than get themselves into an (always expensive) conflict over it. Even your own economic argument works against you.
And in fact that is precisely how segregation has been achieved whenever and wherever the would-be segregationists were not empowered by the state and could thus not resort to expulsions.
Red herrings, the argument would have worked whether I had claimed security would be provided by insurance companies or whatever you envision producing defense and security.
Anyway, I’ll address your ignorance nonetheless. What you fail to understand is that when one spends money of defense, what one is actually paying is an insurance premium. As such is follows the best companies suited to provide security would be the multinational insurance companies. This is because the better the good of defense is provided the lower the damage claims will be the cheaper the costs of the insurance company will be, thus the emphasis will be on preventing crime as opposed to punishing it.
The fact of the matter is that if one wishes to purchase defense they expect the provider of defense to be capable of supplying it, insurance company that happen to often be bigger than governments, are certainly capable, and have an interest in doing so.
Perhaps in future you’ll refrain from laughing at positions you don’t understand and ridiculing positions that you haven’t done the reading on. Fortunately for you there’s plenty of material on this (Tannehils, Hoppe).
Enough of this tangent though.
What you meant to say is they don’t have the right to decide whether or not has guards on his property. This may, or may not, be correct. What matters in reality is that the black man having guards on his property might not be good for business, and that means removing them from the community.
Of course, this is the perfect place to bring up entrepreneurial communities, but I don’t want to get distracted with that.
A few ideologically minded anarchists against multinational insurance companies. If you were correct, we’d have seen the state collapse a long time ago.
How can any self described libertarian claim that swapping one set of rulers for another constitutes a revolution. Moreover this has gone off topic, you pointed to the Russian revolution as a success of people on the streets in an attempt to bring freedom. It didn’t, so stop moving the goalposts.
I only posted the Klu Klux Klan remark since you’d already speculated that the Black Panther woulds team up with the oppressed negro to bring the evil white men to justice. If you believe that it’s not to absurd to say that the Neo Nazis and the Klu Klux Klan may team up to fend off the black invaders.
Why? I’ve never denied that. And it may well be the case, in fact it more than likely would be. But our starting point wasn’t wondering what the white racists would do. We were trying to figure out what the provider of defense would do given aggression against the negro.
Your scenario is absurd on so many levels and there are so many reasons why it is so that you choose to ignore.
1.) Why wouldn`t the black guy have a commercial defense provider of his own? As long as black guys in otherwise all-white racist enclaves have some money to spend on security they represent an untapped market, so if nobody else taps into that market it is inevitable a company will emerge that will specialise in protecting black guys in racist white neighbourhoods.
Yes, to protect isolated black people in white racist neigbourhood may be costly, but then such blacks would pressumably be willing to spend more on defense, so the service does not need to be drasticaly sub-standard.
2.) Even if the black guy didn`t have a PDA of his own (because he can not afford it, since it is too cost prohibitive) it is almost certain some PDA would protect him as part of their charitable activities since offereing free protection to a black guy from racists is just about the best addvertisiment you can imagine.
3.) Even if no PDA took him under his wing of his own accord it is unlikely, the rest of the black community would not just watch as his rights get assaulted but would instead try to raise necessary money to subscribe him to a PDA. Non-racist non-blacks would chipp in too.
4.) If the black guy stil had no access of any kind to any PDA, he would stil have a need for defense, which he would then seek to satisfy through non-commercial chanells. Before accumulation of capital such defense was provided by a clan which was functionaly little more than a pact between people that they would back each other up in case a dispute of some sort escalated into a conflict. (Which is all that took to make sure disputes almost never escalated into conflict, despite the fact clans were of drasticaly different sizes and strengths.)
There is no reason why he would not seek to form a modern day clan, ie a militia by entering into a pact with people similarly threatened in neigbourhoods not too far away. Unless all of them found themselves under attack at the same time they could constitute a significant force.
You can talk about division of labour all you want, but the fact is despite the division of labour most people stil do their own cooking and housekeeping. Most likely in a stateless society everyone would continue to contribute towards defense of their own property in person and only the most threatened or the wealthiest would resort to contracting proffesionals.
5.) Even if the black guy was not successful in joining a regional militia of threatened blacks, it is absolutely inconciveable there would not be enough young black males around that would not be motivated enough to come to his aid solely for reasons of ethnic solidarity, expecting no pay.
Brush up on ethnicaly mixed territories in the state of raised ethnic tension. Induviduals always come to the aid of their beleaguered ethnic kin, of their own accord, expecting no compensation.
6.) Even if everything else failed it is more than likely purely ideologicaly driven propertyists would show up to protect the black guy. Maybe they would be alerted to his plight by a media campaign of non-racists. In a stateless society there is going to be far more activisim than today.
Presently there is no activism, because it is futile. Since success requires influencing the state, influencing outcomes on the ground one by one is meaningless because if they go against the state imposed status quo the state monopoly is simply going to anull them.
Thus the only activisms that exists today are the activisms that are partly encouraged by the state, or at the very least find themselves in the rare position that they can reasonably expect to influence the state establishement in some way. (Enviromentalism, civil rights movement of the 60s…)
And finally and most importantly your scenario is no different from a scenario where a refusal of an old lady - living alone, too poor to hire a PDA, too nearsighted to fire a gun, and too weak to wield a dagger - to sell her house and move away is stalling a giant construction project of an enormous corporation.
Now are you going to argue that the corporation can just send its goons to smash the little old ladies window and nobody is going to do anything about it and she will be coerced into selling? No?
Then how exactly is that different from a harassed black guy in a white racist neigbourhood?
Your consistent attempts to place words into my mouth annoy me to no end. They also show your arguments to be barren. And it is actually very amusing how you reversed your thinking from last time when you insisted on meaning of the word as defined by dictionaries, which are now suddenly not good enough for you?
Why don`t you simply ask me what I meant, if you have trouble comprehending?
But you yourself said conflict is cost prohibitive. Why would whites want to enter into a conflict with the Black Panthers? Your whites may be racists, but that doesn`t mean they would want neo nazis to turn their neigbourhoods into a battle zone in order to protect the rights of one vandal to damage black owned property. Or do you take racists to be nutcases?
And anyways so what even if there was a shooting battle between the Panthers and the neo nazis? Surely nobodoy would get the idea to walk up to the black guy`s house and break his window now, would it? Not in the middle of all that shooting, eh?
So, problem solved.
Again putting words into my mouth. Actually I am talking about Freikorps, IRA, Viet Cong, FNLA, Sandinistas, Bushwackers, Amal, 1920 Revolution Brigades, VMRO… Ideological enough for you?
Yeah, unwinable LOL. Yugoslav Partisans had 800,000 men under arms by the end of the war. 3rd Reich could not subdue them, but an insurance company could? Don`t make me laugh.
Because the costs of defending the black individual are exceedingly high. In order to make protecting him worthwhile he’s going to have to pay very high premiums. Now even if he does that one can’t be certain that the provider of defense will do anything since it would be dangerous for them to ask for money from the person who did it, since they’d risk coming into conflict with the insurance company of rest of the people in that community. Now it may well be the case that everything turns out fine and the white man has to pay restitution, but my point was merely that one can’t be sure of that. Hence, the old man who gives candy to 5 year olds is a far better example.
No, it’s not. It’s a waste of money, especially since the image isn’t that good anyway.
This is just meaningless speculation now. As I said, if this happens Hitler will come back to live and gas all the blacks that try to demand justice.
And what, these clans would represent a threat to multinational insurance companies? You’re deluding yourself and making silly, ad hoc arguments.
Yes, some people could go without insurance. Your analogy is irrelevant. A better analogy is who is going to win a competition for cleanest house, somebody who does their own cleaning between work and cooking or somebody who has a group of professional cleaners doing it for them,
And? It’d be like the bloods against Blackwater, there’s no doubt who would win. This is just getting silly now.
Because in a community of white people, little old ladies receive far greater sympathy than black guys who move in where they’re not wanted. Fortunately manoralism would solve this, but I don’t want to discuss that here.
The thing is, we’re not talking about anything the size of this. Unless you’re speculating that half the country will rise up in indignation about the treatment of a poor negro?
You’re delusional.
What are you talking about? Conflict is expensive, nobody would be picking fights with the Black Panther, and I’ve never said that. I was showing how silly it was for you to mention that, it’s speculation.
What exactly would the Black Panthers do anyway? Lynch the cracker that broke the black guy’s window? No insurance company who wants to keep business will let that happen. Anyway this is devolving into useless, silly speculation. The example of the pervert in the part was far better.
You’re just shifting the goalposts, as you have been this whole debate. You’ve gone so far off topic as to talk about the Black Panthers getting involved or whatever.
The fact is you disagree with my statement that a libertarian revolution won’t happen by putting people on the streets, you claimed this can work citing Russia as an example. I said that no libertarian can look upon the Russian revolution as a success and you start asking me to provide dictionary definitions? It’s not relevant.
Go speculate about the actions of a the Black Panthers to somebody who cares.
I know you picked a lousy example. It is time you admit it and come clean.
You`re playing dumb. No insurance company is going to stay profitable by fighting militias.
Again, playing dumb. Do explain to me how is Blackwater going to stay profitable by entering into a conflict with the bloods? Bloods can`t go bankrupt, Blackwater can.
That is the whole point. Ideologicaly driven movements do not need to stay profitable. In fact they can not be profitable.
Communities of racists dont exist in a vacuum. And black guys dont exist as atomised induviduals disconnected from everyone else either.
Ok, Im starting to think youre not just acting dumb. Do you have any idea about mechanics of escalation in an ethnicaly tense enviroment? Do you have any clue how this things get on a roll? Ethnic tension can escalate from the essentialy mundane. Does Rodney King ring a bell to you?
Are you going to deny that if this insurance company of yours persisted in defending property rights violators that there would emerge more and more volunteers ready to fight it? You don`t think every new confrontation would attract more people (black nationalists) to oppose the agressor insurance company?
There is nothing silly about it. It is only silly to a cosmopolitan, atomised induvidual, culturaly marxist such as yourself, without a basic grasp of mechanics of ethnic solidarity.
To anyone who actually understands such mechanisms it is not silly speculation, it is inevitable given the conditions of ethnicaly motivated harrasement you describe.
And I have already repeated many times what would the protectors seek to achieve. Playing dumb does not suit you.
I know you picked an example that can`t stand with the black guy. So why keep defending it?
I`m not shifting the goalposts. I had this in mind from fairly early on, you can go back and see where the thought occured to me. You simply call it shifting because it is very inconvenient for your argument, which you are non the less very loathe to drop.
What I said was that historicaly revolutions are always in the end brought on by people on the streets. I didn`t claim Russian revolution was a “libertarian success”. You made that up and placed it in my mouth and then went on to claim a revolution is not a revolution if it is not libertarian. LOL.
Childish. If you do not care you are free to stop replying and reading.