Who did this?
Who? Based on what?
Yes, I never said otherwise. So I’m not sure you’re refuting my point ?
The people who don’t respect natural law are usually known as criminals. Criminals are the kind of people a provider of security is supposed to protect honest folks from. That has nothing to do with ‘creating’ law but a lot to do with enforcing objective individual rights.
Feel free to.
Maybe, but that’s not an accurate description of her position, IMO.
The question is not whether the government has the right to initiate force, clearly it does not. The question is, without competition, what is preventing said initiation of force regardless? The thief does not have a right to his victim’s property, but somehow that doesn’t matter to the thief. What stops the government from likewise becoming criminal?
Further, the use of retaliatory force to protect one’s person or property is an individual right. Enforcing a monopoloy on the use of retaliatory force is therefore a violation of individual rights.
Maybe re-reading the latest thread about somalia would give you some answers.
You made the statement, the onus is on you to back up your claim. Back it up.
Making sure you weren’t confused.
And my description of her position is quite accurate, Juan. She wants a monopolist. Big daddy government. There’s no way to avoid it.
I do not claim to have the right nor the desire to initate force, and I hold to the NAP. On the other hand, I want to defend myself, and reject being part of your monopoly on the defense of people against whom force is being initiated. I decide to start a defense company, one that works on voluntary payment, and only defends people from force after it has been initiated. You claim the right for your government to have a monopoly over this, and I have just attempted to break this monopoly by starting a competing ‘government’ (if you must call it that.)
Are you going to try and stop me?
If the awnser is yes, then you will have violated the NAP. If it is no, then you give up your monopoly and are an anarchist.
Is this not the same situation that Rand was in? She refused to admit that she could only have it one way or the other, and pretended to have both.
It’s not up to the government to “try and stop you.” It is up to individual plaintiffs to take issue with what you are doing and to bring a lawsuit against you.
See you in court. [H]
It used to be that the government never initiated a lawsuit. It used to be that the government was only activated when a citizen brought a case against another citizen…
So you’re an anarcho-capitalist? I mean, it seems that your ‘government’ is basically a business. Why would a non-government actor file suit to protect your ‘government’s’ monopoly if I could offer lower prices and better service? Better prices at Wal-Mart? Fuck that, I’m suing them for damages to Target.
Anyways, if you understand economics then you understand that without a monopoly that will be enforced through the initiation of aggression, then you WILL have market competition. Probably lots of it. So, either stop me from competing by force, or stop denying that you’re an anarcho-capitalist [;)]
Stephanie, can you answer how the government will protect rights without coercion?
What possible case could they have? Seriously–what possible case could there be? There’s no such thing as the right to any specific market share, and there’s no such thing as the right to have a monopoly. So what possible case could there be?
It’s so easy to see. It’s right there in front of our faces. Your government already expanded. It went from a protectorate of rights to a monopoly on the judicial system for you said, “It is up to individual plaintiffs… See you in court.” You already determined that the judicial system works by the force of gunpoint handled by this monopolistic government. I mean what if the “individual plaintiffs” don’t follow this coercive government you speak of? This government of yours grows by the day and it hasn’t even left the planning stage in this forum.
The problem here is that a monopoly inherently violates the NAP.
Jason steals Kelly’s necklace. Kelly hires John to retrieve the necklace, which he does. Jason brings suit against John in the government court. We’ll assume for this example that the necklace is demonstrably Kelly’s property, and that Jason’s criminal act was caught on camera.
The govenment is then faced with the choice of violating the NAP and ruling in favor of Jason, or giving up its monpoly and ruling against Jason.
I’m sorry, but when I see a 230+ post I figure there is probably some significant discussion. Would it be better at this point, to avoid a convoluted thread, to start a new thread with all major parties starting with a post summing up their positions (probably starting with the OP)?
The participants don’t seem to have a problem. Anyone can pick up the gist just by reading the last page or two worth of posts, I reckon.
-
I don’t see how.
-
Okay. The only unbelievable part is that Jason would bring a lawsuit in the first place or that it would get to the stage of a trial. Sounds like the kind of thing that would get settled before trial. Jason obviously is unaware that he has been caught on tape.
-
But if somehow it got to trial, I can’t see a judge ruling in Jason’s favor. However, let’s say that in retrieving the necklace, John caused damage to Jason’s property. That could be factored in, as could the damage Jason did to Kelly’s property (if any - and I mean by that wrecking a door or window, for example in order to gain access.)
What you are missing here is that taking action to retrieve one’s property could result in you losing a lawsuit if you target the wrong person and they decide to sue. People probably will try to sort problems out themselves rather than go to court, and good on them if they can. The court will only deal with cases brought to it, and take into account all the evidence put before it. The problem with trying to sort complicated matters out on your own is that you could be in error and end up losing in court.
In this scenario, what was Jason’s reason for bringing the lawsuit, when he knew he was in the wrong? It costs money to bring a lawsuit, after all. How can he justify suing John for retrieving Kelly’s property? Did Kelly owe Jason money, and he took the necklace to settle the debt? That’s about the only way Jason would have a legitimate excuse for his actions (not that he’d win with that excuse but it would make some sense of the events.)
It’s a monopoly on the use of retaliatory force. There is no monopoly on arbitration, dispute resolution and mediation services. Going to court should be seen as the last resort, and for corporations it likely would be written into the contract - the method of resolving issues will take the following steps, and those steps would be set out.
The use of retaliatory force and enforcement of court orders & judgments is the proper job of government. The judicial system doesn’t work at the point of a gun. People aren’t forced to come to court to settle their differences. They can try and are encouraged to try to resolve their issues without going to trial.
Have you any idea how court works now? Well, if you’re in the States, it would be different from Canada.
The use of coercion in the form of retaliatory force requires objective criteria. It is not the realm for subjective wishes whim and desires, at least not on the part of the judges or juries or indeed police or armies.
The realm of the subjective is the economic realm, where people buy and sell according to all kinds of criteria, a mix of subjective wishes and objective values.
When people are able to trade by voluntary agreement to mutual benefit, each party upholding his part of the bargain, there are no disputes. The only conceivable role of government is as a registry - for all kinds of property title, property transfer and records of births, deaths, marriages, wills - whatever people wish to have recorded in an objectively verifiable way.
I’ll say it again - the problem with government throughout the ages can be diagnosed as a problem of the kind of law that’s been set up, or to put it another way, the kind of social conduct that has been legislated against. Because laws have gone beyond the prohibition of the initiation of force into a paternalistic role, dictating all kinds of behaviors that are and are not acceptable (which are examples of subjective rather than objective laws), the system has become corrupted. Whoever gains control of the government shoves his/her values down everyone’s throats.
A government that is given the role of protecting individual rights and which is permitted to only use retaliatory force according to objective criteria, is prevented by law from enacting subjective legislation and prevented by law from employing the tax method to fund itself.
You’ve had it explained to you over and over and over and over: YOUR MONOPOLIST PROVIDER MUST INITIATE FORCE TO MAINTAIN THE MONOPOLY. BELIEVING OTHERWISE IS SIMPLY DELUDING YOURSELF AND INTELLECTUALLY DISHONEST.
Is that clear now?
so why do you believe in special privileges so much? and why are you against competition in the marketplace for defence/legitimate-force services?
you are a violence socialist as far as i can make out. i started out feeling fairly charitable to you, but the more you post…