what do you think statist means?
Good points I agree with you. I would also add that a dictionary is not a subtitute for epistemology.
Yes it does serve a purpose actually, since psychology is an important factor in an individual’s politics, which is related to statism greatly.
However, I’m sure others will oblige you & stick more on topic. I don’t think you’ll need to worry about any therapists ganging up & psychoanalyzing you. I also hope you do not let some minor disagreements sour your experience of the forums.
"why arent you willing to listen to powerfull one liners? "
We must disagree on what a powerful one liner is.
why would you be unwilling to listen to powerfull one liners if one was presented ?
You or one of your other anarchist advocates just said they would be a monopoly. Secondly how could it work if it wasn’t a monopoly? A simple thought experiment proves the absurdity of this claim.
You and I are neighbors and I pay government A for rights protection and you pay government B. You come home one day to find that your couch is missing. You overheard me the day before discussing with a friend how I liked your couch and I wanted one just like it. You come home and see the couch missing and determine I have stolen it. You come over to my house accusing me of theft and demand to enter my house to search for your missing couch. I say no. You say fine I’m calling my government.
So I do the same and call my government. So now government B comes to my house demanding entry and charging me with theft while government A says I’m innocent and that government B have no right to come on my property and detain me. I’ll let you figure out what happens next.
lol, i know. i’ve read books on the subject.
"they are useful in that they challenge minarchists out of their complacency. "
yeah its real effective to not have to prove your case and just call someone a statist. very useful.
what does statist mean?
Please don’t be rude, what happens next?
What happens next?
Most likely Company A and Company B will go to Court C to present their mutual cases.
“anyhow,i think on its face your argument is absurd. that the world starts, there are some human beings, and before anyone can trade any property with any other one, some 3rd human must have a monopoly on law and tell them that they are in their rights to do the trade, or not…”
You are confusing the literal act of trading with a society trading in a free market where force is outlawed. I’m sure there was some trade in Russia under Stalin but that doesn’t qualify as a free market does it?
Yes cavemen without laws could barter from time to time but they wouldn’t be free from coercion in any meaningful sense they would be at the whim of any thug and without property protection there isn’t going to be much production and trade if they have to engage in the retaliatory use of force every time a hungry caveman walks by.
As our founders said to secure these rights (that make a free market possible) governments are instituted amongst men. Rights are meaningless if they aren’t protected and without them people can’t function and consequently there can be no free market. A free market by definition is a market free from force where individual rights are protected. Your position acts as if the free market exists before rights protection exists and that you can then put rights protection on the market. This is false and misuse of concepts. Rights protection is the precondition of a free market. It’s what makes the market place possible. How can one be free to trade for rights protection in a free market if his right to trade isn’t already protected? He may be able to trade if there are no criminals around that day but he certainly isn’t trading in a free market protected from force.
Also who enforces a contract between you and the government you hire if there is a dispute?
Anarcho capitalism sounds good in theory if you don’t understand the context in which competition and trade takes place or the preconditions required to have a free market or the difference between government and business. But once those concepts are fully understood it becomes rather silly because you are talking about a market that doesn’t and cannot exist. Furthermore there is the problem of objective law under competing governments. If your government doesn’t agree with the laws of my government than what? We go to war? Anarcho capitalism is practice would be nothing more than tribal warfare.
it is a contradiction because there is no market. The market is a consequence of rights protection.
i agree with all of you that its logical if you acceopt the premise that there can be a free market without rights protection but that is a contradiction in terms.
i don’t really care to argue over what statist means. My interest in the conversation is limited government vs anarchy.
I take statist to mean that the state can initiate physical force.
huh? Where do you live? I went to the grocery store about an hour ago and stopped by the farm market yesterday. Do you somehow tap into the internet market for free, but still even if you did for free you are still tapping into a market?
"Yes it does serve a purpose actually, since psychology is an important factor in an individual’s politics, which is related to statism greatly. "
Fair enough but is anyone really in a position to psycho analyze an anonymous stranger on a message board after a few posts?
“However, I’m sure others will oblige you & stick more on topic. I don’t think you’ll need to worry about any therapists ganging up & psychoanalyzing you. I also hope you do not let some minor disagreements sour your experience of the forums.”
Not at all and I appreciate your comments I just didn’t want this becoming personal or insulting just because we both have strong views on the matter. I imagine this is the only point in which i would disagree with anyone on here, that and possibly some foreign policy stuff but is a discussion I’m not prepared to have. I still have more studying to do on that topic.
No. A market is an arrangement where exchanges may take place (buyers meet sellers). They are not a consequence of rights protection, just look at any underground economy for proof.
what, my description of people uncoecred, is somehow stalinist? did you read what i wrote? are you responding to what i wrote?
they would be free from from coercion in as far as they avoid being coerced…this is a meaningful sense.. as such your point is hollow… if they speculate that they need protection from thugs, this is a service to be delivered to them. they/youhave a choice, get it from a monopoly provider or get it from a supplier in a free market for that service. if the protection of their property is important to enable greater production of other commodities then surely they should get the best possible service at the lowest possible cost. does that sound like it begs for a monopoly provider?
are they protected? by the stroke of the pen of the legislator? by the benevolence of the god of peace who shines down on men that live in territories wherein some individuals have formed a government and use force to harrass those that would compete with them in the provision of security and law even wherein so doing they do not violate property rights of others..
.
yes, true, before people will seek protection for their property, they will have property. they would hardly seek to protect that which they do not have. and they will hardly utilise their scarce resources towards the goal of protecting other scare resources, if they do not own scarce resources with which to do so.
people have property because they act in the world, and are moral agents. not because there is somebody, a 3rd party, that says, "this is your property, this is his property, these are the rules for using property ".. etc.
i think you are confusing eissues of possiblity with viability. i.e the market will be hampered if there are few/no agents protecting property, and there are agents stealing and destroying. but if one wants to defend from this, the solution is not to institute a monopoly service provider, but have competition in the deliverance of this service.
he certainly is not protected from a monopoly provider of the service, who can legitimate bleed him dry and outlaw anyone that comes to his defence. a government with the right to take an involuntary tax, is by definition not protecting property rights but the opposite. just like any industry competition keeps businesses honest. competition keeps businesses effective. competition keeps businesses satisfying customer needs.
well we hardly need to call it ‘government’ when it has no monopoly. call it .protection service, or law service, or whatever subservice you are thinking of.
the answer is obviously that there exist other institutions with a stake in providing justice that can be appealled to if justice is at issue.
you must understand that this is not the case under monopoly**. your criticism of anarchy is really a powerful critcism of minarchy,** observe:
who ensures justice between you and the monopoly minarchy government you live under if there is a dispute ?
lol, precisely! governments go to war as they have no eye on profit and loss. whereas its absurd to think of businesses so doing. businesses have a stake in peace. we dont go to war, we go to correctly solve justice problems, or the next best compromise… in reality archism is nothing more than tribal warfare between ruling elites and the ruled, and the different ‘nations’, whereas anarcho-capitalism is harmonius and characterised by the economic means, not the politic
So what is the point of paying government B if i have to do what government C says? that defeats the purpose. I thought the point was i get to choose what court and law enforcement i want.
the purpose is to be protected and be well served in justice. the purpose is not to weild whatever political force you desire because you have your own ‘government’ that is your plaything.