I think I provided a proper explanation of my position - notice I never I said “people should not be able to voluntarily associate” - It seems you’re putting words in my mouth.
I’ll just note that tribalists oppose free association, as in “if you were born in our little sect then you can’t be friends with the subhumans who belong to other godless or whatever tribes”.
No it doesn’t follow. But on the other hand people can create any fantasy they want. So ?
No it is not. And you did not explain why a legal codes should be linked to churches.
Yeah well. I thought you were being serious but it seems you want to set up a false dichotomy between statism and…tribalist ‘voluntary’ statism.
I don’t think I said I oppose that principle in the abstract. What I’m saying is that, depending on circumstances, the principle is flawed or irrelevant.
I see no direct connection between free association and the creation of a legal code. Yes, people can freely associate AND then create a legal code, OR not create it. Free association doesn’t necessarily entail the creation of a new legal code.
Of course, if by ‘free association’ you mean the creation of ‘voluntary’ governments, then what you say makes sense since you’re somehow equating free association, voluntary government and legal codes.
Yeah well. What about a legal system in which women are stoned to death if they don’t wear the ‘proper’ clothes ? What do you think about a such a system ? Is it allowed in a libertarian framework or not ?
No libertarian legal system forbids revealed religion. Muslims don’t need a special/particular/personal legal system allowing them to practice their religion.
Agreed. And it is objectively verifiable that those laws represent the initiation of force in their substance and intent.
Here’s how I see it. The overarching “government” ought to be charged solely with the responsibility of responding to any and all claims of initiation of force. The law prohibiting the initiation of force is the only law that applies to everyone. In order to have access to this service, you have to pay for it. You cannot be forced to pay for it in advance; you pay for it either when you want to use it, or you buy insurance to provide yourself with the funds to pay for it should the need arise. The “government” is strictly prohibited from forcing citizens to pay for its services “on the off-chance.”
The law prohibiting the initiation of force applies to everyone in the whole country.
Now, people are going to be setting up their own organizations, companies, groups, etc., each with their own private laws, rules, what-have-you. The Law Prohibiting Initiation of Force is the Law of the Land, which protects everyone from coercion by such private groups on its own members, or on other individuals and private groups.
Anyone and everyone will be subject to the law prohibiting the initiation of force BUT bear in mind it is usually at the discretion of someone who is being coerced or swindled, held against their will, forced to do something they wouldn’t do, etc. By that I mean, In such situations the onus is on the individual who perceives himself to be the victim of coercion to initiate a lawsuit - which is in fact the first step in using retaliatory force.
Retaliatory force is not coercive - it is defensive.
So - as long as the person is alive, he or she is able to bring a lawsuit. What should the law be in respect of murder victims? What if the person has nobody who would step up to launch the lawsuit? Should murderers go unpunished? Should there be some kind of charity or other set-up which would step up to pay the costs of launching the investigation, and going to trial?
1 : to restrain or dominate by force <religion in the past has tried to coerce the irreligious — W. R. Inge>
2 : to compel to an act or choice
3 : to achieve by force or threat
When you use retaliatory force and successfully defend yourself, you have ACHIEVED BY FORCE (definition #3) the coercion of the individual to stop.
You’re too narrowly defining coercion; this is giving you a problem.
It can start up. It just can’t act because to do so would be to appear to be initiating force.
If someone breaks into your home and steals from you, how do you propose to deal with that? Your system of competing entities dealing in retaliatory force is nothing but a recipe for constant civil war between/among such entities. You need to provide some concrete examples of how this system you propose would actually function in real life, because I do not see it achieving peace. Rather it appears that it’s a perfect way to achieve chaos. I do not believe you are truly interested in trading with other people in a peaceful manner, engaging in transactions with others by VOLUNTARY agreement to mutual benefit.
There are a million different kinds of activities in which to engage. If you want to set up another entity that is to provide retaliatory force, you are basically saying you want to set up your own country. Go for it.
You are trying to make retaliatory force mean the same thing as initiatory force. That is contradictory and you have made it impossible for there to be lawful self-defense.
No, it would not. Again: read Roy Childs’ letter to Rand. You are desiring a monopolist to control the use of “retaliatory” force, but to maintain the monopoly it must initiate force. You can’t have it both ways, Steph. You want to have your cake and eat it as well. Not possible.
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
Seriously, Steph: this has been dealt with over and over. Rothbard, David Friedman, and others have debunked that silly myth. There’s absolutely no reason there would be “civil war” among them. None. Honestly, it is the brainwashing you’ve received at the state-run citizen factories (public schools) which has led you to spout that nonsense. Conflicts like that are costly, and without taxation to keep them going, there’s no reason to even assume such would happen.
Go on, then. Let’s hear how you qualify the two. I’ve been trying to do so, and you’ve taken issue with every point I’ve made. So let’s hear how you differentiate between them.
Oh please. This has nothing to do with the education I received over 30 years ago. I didn’t even study this subject at school. Everything I’ve learned about economics has been from laissez-faire economists and Objectivist philosophers.
You have yet to supply concrete examples of how the system you propose would function, as you understand it.
Cause you said an “overarching ‘government’ ought to be charged solely…”. So only this “overarching ‘government’” can do it? I really haven’t heard a distinct definition by you as to this “government” you keep referring to. Are you talking about a one world government?
Actually, it does. It stems from the inculcation that government is good and is there to help.
Then you must know that Rand created a Rothbardian anarchocapitalist enclave, i.e. Galt’s Gulch.
You’ve yet to say precisely and without question what you will have for breakfast on May 9, 2019. And it must be truthful, not a guess. But all you will have is a guess, won’t you? You can’t precisely say concretely and truthfully what you will have because it’s a future conditional based upon your preferences then, which you don’t know.
Not at the moment. It would be nice if people everywhere agreed to abide by the law, but I’m being realistic about the state of the world today. Before we can hope to have even half of the world’s governments committed to protecting individual rights (instead of committed to abridging those rights), we need at least one country to demonstrate how the system would work.
I’m talking about government of a free-market nation. I define government as the system or policy that governs everyone in a given area. I define government as the means of protection against the initiation of force, ie the means of using force in retaliation against those who initiate it.
I reject the idea that government must be an entity that initiates force, which is why I’'m having such a tough time talking with some people at this site because they are proceeding on the faulty assumption that government must be an entity that initiates force.