Hi, I'm new.

[Stephanie_Bond]

@liberty student

Ok, thanks. You kept saying that was it’s role and I was concerned that you weren’t spotting the obvious flawed premise.

Because government’s job is to be the means of achieving the protection of rights, against the initiation of force, it can only accomplish this task by not initiating force.

Paying for that peace of mind is easily done, once people feel assured that they have the right NOT to pay. Once they appreciate that they do want to be able to publicly declare that they own this land, or that they want such & such people to inherit their worldly goods when they die, they will want to pay for those things. The fact of people choosing to register documents for the purpose of having their ownership legally recognized is what will provide the sums necessary to run that aspect of rights protection.

Acting in the capacity of a government official means referring only to the objective law and asking that plaintiffs answer the questions of who did what to whom and when and how do the actions constitute an initiation of force and what does the plaintiff ask for in compensation for their loss.

And take it from there.

Delegating one’s right of self-defense to government does not mean giving up one’s right of self-defense. To state that it must mean that is to leave individuals at the mercy of thugs and criminals.

Try to imagine a scenario in which people are being self-governing, and trading with each other by voluntary agreement to mutual benefit. They’re making all kinds of neat & unique contractual agreements and getting new things done. This is something that everyone wants to enjoy and participate in on their own behalfs, for their subjective appreciation and enjoyment.

Having the mechanism of government available as a last resort kind of thing will hopefully achieve the proliferation of all kinds of businesses trying to help people settle disputes privately, without the obvious public quality that will always attach to government proceedings.

A litigant turns to the government if those private means of dispute resolution do not work (or rather, do not work to that litigant’s satisfaction. It is possible that the litigant is actually in the wrong, and should have accepted what the private arbitrator decided.)

As far as what level of delegation you want to pay for for yourself is your call. You don’t have to pay for government - just don’t do anything that could be viewed as an initiation of force and no one sane, rational and cognizant of the meaning of individual rights will initiate force against you, either.

Be a self-governing individual who abides by the Law that bans the initiation of force. That is Natural Law in my view. Finding a name for the proposition that states that when nobody initiates force in a given geographical area, peace will reign among the inhabitants of that area.

Delegating to the institution of government the use of retaliatory force according to objective criteria is the means of keeping all prosecutions public. When private individuals go to government, the proceedings become public knowledge, in order for justice to be seen to be done and to keep the government employees honest.

At this point, I know of only one law that qualifies as an objective law - i.e., a law that applies to everyone without exception. The ban on the initiation of force would be such a law since there is no rational justification for anyone to be exempt. One can easily verify this with reference to Natural Law, the facts of reality and a process of reason.

Since this law ought to apply to everyone, it must apply also to government.

People can and should set up their own systems and attempt to govern themselves according to their personal rules and laws. The only grounds on which someone can come to court is to allege that another has initiated force against him or his property. People should try private mediation first.

The idea of this kind of government is not to have an entity breathing down everyone’s necks. That’s what we have now. The reason the government HAS to be voluntarily funded is so that the means of protecting rights from the initiation of force isn’t compromised by permitting any kind of initiation of force by those purporting to offer protection against the initiation of force.

That is why governments today don’t work. That level of corruption began when the government was permitted to use force to pay for itself via the mechanism of taxation. Taxation means coercive funding. There is no kind of voluntary taxation - that is a contradiction in terms. Proper government is paid for voluntarily by those who recogize the value of having the means to register documents for the purpose of public declarations of intent (such as with a will), of ownership (such as with buying/selling homes and land), and having the means to settle disputes all available for use as needed.

Governments today pretend to protect rights, making a lot of noise about the “right to education” and “right to health care” all the while trampling real rights.

Governments are specifically permitted to initiate force and use threats and intimidation to make people pay tax and also to make them accept other kinds of invasive legislation, Gobs of tax and trampling of rights. In fact, government today is doing all the things you claim a government that is voluntarily funded would do. Why would a voluntarily funded government do those things? Anyone who was trying to force someone to do something against their will risks being sued, and losing, and having to go to jail to pay the debt.

The best protection against the initiation of force is the declaration that no-body has the right to initiate force.

It is a matter of consistency that the government itself cannot initiate force for any reason, either. When a person is convicted by a court of competent and objectively rational jurisdiction, the use of coercion against the convicted defendant is the use of force in a retaliatory capacity.

I cannot guarantee that we’d ever get to a point where we never need to use retaliatory force. I think it will happen one day, but not in our lifetimes. It will take a while just to get people disabused of the wrong ideas many of them hold wherein they are automatically entitled to be given health care or allowed to attend at a church or other organization because they want to, regardless of the view of the person who owns that good/service/organization.

It will take some time to iron out the kinds of disputes that we who already understand the working of the free market have accepted.

I would like to see the government become a friendly helpful means of peacefully trading with each other, because we use the mechanism of government to voluntarily register documents for the orderly transfer of ownership of property.

This contradicts your previous answer. Retaliatory force is not protecting rights, in fact, as you have written, retaliatory force is punishment or restitution. It has nothing to do with protecting rights from the initial violation. It is ex post facto.

There is absolutely no reason to give up the right of self-defense. The delegation of self-defense does not negate the right of self-defense.

That is, unless your first answer was wrong, in which case, I will have to ask again, how can the government prevent coercion without initiating coercion first?

It is impossible to stop coercion from being initiated, because people possess volition and can choose the wrong thing. They can make honest mistakes. They can also deliberately choose to be dishonest, thinking it a shortcut to achieving values in life.

You are asking that people be stopped from initiating force by someone or something able to see into their heads and realize they’re about to initiate force and stop them.

So, you’re asking the impossible.

Nobody - not government, not private enterprise - can stop people from making that decision to initiate force, to commit fraud, or murder.

People have to stop themselves from initiating force because they come to understand that it’s in not n their rational self-interest to do so.

Prevention cannot be achieved by force, but only by reason.

[whipitgood]

@Stephanie Bond

the government itself cannot initiate force for any reason

Ok.. discussion over. You’re an Anarcho-capitalist.

Your monopoly on defense dissolves, as most will absent coercion, and we have a free market in ‘governments.’ Again, more correctly, they are businesses.

No need for further discussion.

[Stephanie_Bond]

@whipitgood

@Stephanie Bond

@Knight_of_BAAWA

@Stephanie Bond

if you do not wish to delegate your right of self-defense to the government, why would you choose to live in this country?

If the woman didn’t want to be raped, why did she wear a short skirt?

See the problem with your stance?

Nope.

Why should someone have to leave a country because they don’t want to be a part of your monopoly? Are you going to use coercion to either (A) get them to participate, or (B) force them to leave? If no, then you’re an anarcho-capitalist. Your monopoly will dissapear, and your ‘government’ will have to compete with other ‘governments’ on the market. Or, more correctly, businesses.

Actually, you’re right - they should not have to leave as long as they’re abiding by the law prohibiting the initiation of force.

Government will indeed be in competition with business for dispute resolution, I suppose. If private arbitration can get the job done for a plaintiff and he’s able to get a decision with which the defendant/respondent complies, case closed.

I am fine with that.

Government is there to respond when that method doesn’t work. Instead of escalating the dispute, the parties come to court.

@Knight_of_BAAWA

@Stephanie Bond

I realize it is difficult to imagine how govenrment would be confined to behaving objectively and not become the same kind of entity that it has historically.

Why should the government behave ‘objectively,’ when you have no faith that individuals can?

Because that is all a government is required to do - judge according to objective rules of evidence and according to objective law.

I did not say I don’t have faith in individuals’ ability to be objective. But the fact is, when there is a dispute, someone is right and someone is wrong. If they are having a disagreement, they can’t both be right. Someone isn’t being objective or he would concede that the other guy’s assertion is the correct one.

[whipitgood]

@Stephanie Bond

Government will indeed be in competition with business for dispute resolution, I suppose.

Then how is that a government? That’s a business.

The government of McDonalds is not competing with businesses in the fast food market. That’s nonsense.

[Knight_of_BAAWA]

@Stephanie Bond

Actually, you’re right - they should not have to leave as long as they’re abiding by the law prohibiting the initiation of force.

Then the government has to go, since it’s a coercive monopoly.

You’re STILL confusing tenses of government, Steph.

[ladyattis]

Let me put it another way, if all that is needed for a civil society is a number of individuals to simply conform to NAP (that’s easy, they just don’t hit, steal, or generally intrude on each other or others in general) then what real purpose would there be for a government? To protect those that conform to the basic idea of NAP? Obviously not, such folks would also prepare themselves against those that wouldn’t respect the basic idea of NAP, just as one prepares for the natural dangers of nature (of storms, of wild animals, and such). So, then really isn’t government just useless (not simply redundant)? Especially if we’re considering that there’s already a number of folks conforming to NAP, and these folks are preparing themselves for the dangers of the world (and people). Which really makes me wonder if Stephanie’s defense of government is merely a misplacing of who does what and why… shrugs

[Stephanie_Bond]

@whipitgood

@Stephanie Bond

the government itself cannot initiate force for any reason

Ok.. discussion over. You’re an Anarcho-capitalist.

Your monopoly on defense dissolves, as most will absent coercion, and we have a free market in ‘governments.’ Again, more correctly, they are businesses.

No need for further discussion.

No. I’m not an anarcho-capitalist.

If people go to a private arbitrator, and they abide by his decision voluntarily, there is no need for government to be involved.

It is only when the person who was found liable to pay compensation does not pay their debt, that the aggrieved party has to look further for justice. How would you suggest the situation play out? Is the fight going to escalate between the litigants? Maybe it will. Maybe they’re fine with that. Maybe it won’t affect anyone else and they’ll just burn each other’s houses down. Or something.

But if their indvidual actions hurt a third party’s property or endanger his life, what should he do? Where does the private feud end? How can people have the expectation of living in peace if there is no means for the orderly enforcement of objective judgments?

[whipitgood]

Holy shit this is not going anywhere.

@Stephanie Bond

How would you suggest the situation play out?

Private courts; whatever works. You keep insisting that NO ONE should be allowed to initiate coercion, yet you want to have a coercive monopoly on law and order.

Or, in the case that you don’t, then you’re an anarchist. I don’t know how much clearer it can be. Absent a coercive monopoly, private courts will arrise with different versions of ‘law and order.’ In effect, under your system, there will be multiple ‘governments’ in any given area. They will compete for your business by providing the best service for the lowest prices. Etc. Etc.

Again, you’re describing an anarcho-capitalistic system of private courts with competing legal systems. The only way to deny this is to accept that you must initiate aggression to do so.

[JackCuyler]

@Stephanie Bond

@JackCuyler

1. The problem here is that a monopoly inherently violates the NAP.

@Stephanie Bond

1. I don’t see how.

This is simple logic. A monopoly is a person or group engaging in a certain behavior and simultaneously using force to prevent others from engaing in the same behavior. If the behavior violates the NAP, then the person or group is violating the NAP by engaging in it. If the behavior does not violate the NAP, then the person or group is violating the NAP by preventing others from doing so.

The NAP is universal. Actions either violate it, meaning no one has the right to perform those actions, or they don’t, meaning everyone has a right to perform those actions.

As to specifics:

If the government has a right to break down a door to retrieve stolen property for a paying customer without violating the NAP, then I have a right to break down a door to retrieve stolen property for a paying customer without violating the NAP. If anyone uses force to attempt to stop me, that person is in violation of the NAP.

If the government has a right to set up a court to settle disputes without violating the NAP, then I have a right to set up a court to settle disputes, and anyone who tries to stop me using force is violating the NAP.

If the government has the right to use force to enforce the judgments of its courts without violating the NAP, then I have a right to use force to enforce the judgments of my court without violating the NAP, and anyone who tries to stop me using force is violating the NAP.

If the government has the right to jail, enslave or execute someone convicted of a crime in its court without violating the NAP, then I have the right to jail, enslave or execute someone convicted of a crime in my court without violating the NAP, and anyone who tries to stop me using force is violating the NAP.

The list can go on and on, but it is always the same: All behavior not prohibited by the NAP is permissible by the NAP to all. If the government can do it without violating the NAP, then anyone can do it without violating the NAP.

[liberty_student]

@Stephanie Bond

@liberty student

Ok, thanks. You kept saying that was it’s role and I was concerned that you weren’t spotting the obvious flawed premise.

Because government’s job is to be the means of achieving the protection of rights, against the initiation of force, it can only accomplish this task by not initiating force.

That doesn’t make any sense. You already admitted that government cannot prevent the initiation of force.

If it cannot protect rights, then it can only engage in resolution and restitution. It is not capable of supplying self-defense without violating rights of the people it is protecting. Basically, you’re arguing both sides of a false premise.

@Stephanie Bond

It is impossible to stop coercion from being initiated, because people possess volition and can choose the wrong thing.

Thank you.

@Stephanie Bond

You are asking that people be stopped from initiating force by someone or something able to see into their heads and realize they’re about to initiate force and stop them.

So, you’re asking the impossible.

Actually, that is what you are asking for. You have written numerous times that governments exist to protect rights. But obviously they cannot, because rights will be infringed before the government can get involved. Only individuals can protect themselves from rights violations. Governments can perform a role in justice and enforcement, but that isn’t necessarily a service that monopoly government can do on it’s own. It’s certainly not so necessary as to demand one legal code either.

@Stephanie Bond

Prevention cannot be achieved by force, but only by reason.

Governments only offer force, not reason.

[Stephanie_Bond]

“Governments only offer force, not reason.”

Untrue. Government has to offer reasons, objectively verifiable, for the use of retaliatory force. Government has to be open to the scrutiny of the public i.e., all the people of the country, for everything it does. That is why private companies cannot have the right to send people to jail. I think you have forgotten that in a proper society, private companies would not be required to file income tax forms, or indeed make known what they are spending their money on. Governments would be required to account for every penny.

[wilderness]

@Stephanie Bond

“Governments only offer force, not reason.”

Untrue. Government has to offer reasons, objectively verifiable, for the use of retaliatory force. Government has to be open to the scrutiny of the public i.e., all the people of the country, for everything it does. That is why private companies cannot have the right to send people to jail. I think you have forgotten that in a proper society, private companies would not be required to file income tax forms, or indeed make known what they are spending their money on. Governments would be required to account for every penny.

What?! You’re for tax now. And your only stance is “Government has to…” has That’s not reasonable.

[Stephanie_Bond]

@Knight_of_BAAWA

@Stephanie Bond

Actually, you’re right - they should not have to leave as long as they’re abiding by the law prohibiting the initiation of force.

Then the government has to go, since it’s a coercive monopoly.

You’re STILL confusing tenses of government, Steph.

But is it a monpoly on retaliatory force, or simply the final arbiter? If private arbitration does not produce results satisfactory to the parties, and by “satisfactory” I mean, the parties to the litigation agree and abide by the decision, then they have the option to go public and ask the government to review the whole dispute and make a ruling that is enforceable by law.

Government in such a situation must make everything it does public. When people arbitrate privately, they can keep the whole business between themselves. When they ask government to act, the dispute becomes public of necessity.

[Stephanie_Bond]

@wilderness

@Stephanie Bond

“Governments only offer force, not reason.”

Untrue. Government has to offer reasons, objectively verifiable, for the use of retaliatory force. Government has to be open to the scrutiny of the public i.e., all the people of the country, for everything it does. That is why private companies cannot have the right to send people to jail. I think you have forgotten that in a proper society, private companies would not be required to file income tax forms, or indeed make known what they are spending their money on. Governments would be required to account for every penny.

What?! You’re for tax now. And your only stance is “Government has to…” has That’s not reasonable.

Where? Where did I say that there is tax? I said would NOT be required to file income taxes or indeed any tax forms.

Government would be required to state how much money it has received from voluntary sources, meaning the total amount and not saying John gave this much and Joe gave that much, - and what that money is being spent on. But more importantly, government action would have to be public, especially where it is ruling that people are to pay fines, restitution and/or go to jail.

[Stephanie_Bond]

@wilderness

And your only stance is “Government has to…” has That’s not reasonable.

Isn’t it? Government has to be accountable.

At the moment, government is not accountable. Instead, businesses are. Business is currently treated as tho it exists by permission of the state, and must account for every penny - because government is hysterical about forcing people to pay “their fair share” of an unfair tax burden.

Meanwhile, government itself is allowed to do what it wants. There is no real accountability. Government does what it wants, and business and individuals are forced to declare every penny earned. The situation is upside down.

Business should be private, and should not have to be accountable to government for every penny.

Government should be accountable not just for how much it spends on what - i.e., that the money given to it for a particular service was indeed spent on that service, but must account for its actions in the use of retaliatory force. Otherwise objective verification on its actions would not be possible.

[eliotn]

@Stephanie Bond

Where? Where did I say that there is tax? I said would NOT be required to file income taxes or indeed any tax forms.

Government would be required to state how much money it has received from voluntary sources, meaning the total amount and not saying John gave this much and Joe gave that much, - and what that money is being spent on. But more importantly, government action would have to be public, especially where it is ruling that people are to pay fines, restitution and/or go to jail.

OK, how is this going to be enforced?

[Knight_of_BAAWA]

@Stephanie Bond

Actually, you’re right - they should not have to leave as long as they’re abiding by the law prohibiting the initiation of force.

@Knight_of_BAAWA

Then the government has to go, since it’s a coercive monopoly.

You’re STILL confusing tenses of government, Steph.

@Stephanie Bond

But is it a monpoly on retaliatory force, or simply the final arbiter?

Both, according to you.

Let go of your desire for monopoly. Monopolies produce lower quality and higher prices. The only way to maintain the monopoly is to initiate force. You have been told that for weeks now, Steph. Weeks. Why is it not sinking in?

@Stephanie Bond

If private arbitration does not produce results satisfactory to the parties, and by “satisfactory” I mean, the parties to the litigation agree and abide by the decision, then they have the option to go public and ask the government to review the whole dispute and make a ruling that is enforceable by law.

Why should there be a final arbiter which is a coercive monopoly?

[Stephanie_Bond]

@liberty student

@Stephanie Bond

Because government’s job is to be the means of achieving the protection of rights, against the initiation of force, it can only accomplish this task by not initiating force.

That doesn’t make any sense. You already admitted that government cannot prevent the initiation of force.

If it cannot protect rights, then it can only engage in resolution and restitution. It is not capable of supplying self-defense without violating rights of the people it is protecting. Basically, you’re arguing both sides of a false premise.

Your premise is flawed. You are declaring that because government is not omniscient, therefore it is useless. The protection of rights by government can only be done after the fact - after someone has abridged someone else’s rights. If the allure of the opportunities of the free market is not enough to make every citizen abide by the NAP as you call it, and the opportunity of resolving disputes privately isn’t enough to make wrongdoers make restitution for their actions, then the ability of government to enforce punishment will have to stand as the last line of defense.

@liberty student

Actually, that is what you are asking for. You have written numerous times that governments exist to protect rights. But obviously they cannot, because rights will be infringed before the government can get involved. Only individuals can protect themselves from rights violations. Governments can perform a role in justice and enforcement, but that isn’t necessarily a service that monopoly government can do on it’s own. It’s certainly not so necessary as to demand one legal code either.

The use of retaliatory force in the instance of being attacked is within the realm of individual rights. Deciding to go out and bash someone’s head in is not within the realm of individual self-defense.

And yes, it ought to be a monopoly role for government, but only because government’s actions must be made fully public. Do you wish to destroy the “private” part of private enterprise???

And yet it is necessary to have a single legal code in a given geographical area for that kind of enforcement.

Private laws are the laws/rules/codes of conduct for private individuals and businesses. You have to wear this uniform if you want to work/play here, or you have to work these hours, etc. If a person doesn’t like it, he will seek employment (or membership) elsewhere. The private company can force the person to comply only to the extent of refusing to employ them, but it cannot imprison them or force them to take the job or prevent them from leaving the job.

Private rules & laws are voluntarily agreed to by all parties who want to take part in that business/club/whatever. Such rules might be unreasonable, but that’s the prerogative of the private business owner/private individual. These are subjective laws, and the proper place for subjective laws is in private enterprise.

Government action and law must be objectively stated and objectively reasonable.

[Stephanie_Bond]

@eliotn

@Stephanie Bond

Where? Where did I say that there is tax? I said would NOT be required to file income taxes or indeed any tax forms.

Government would be required to state how much money it has received from voluntary sources, meaning the total amount and not saying John gave this much and Joe gave that much, - and what that money is being spent on. But more importantly, government action would have to be public, especially where it is ruling that people are to pay fines, restitution and/or go to jail.

OK, how is this going to be enforced?

Gosh, how do you think?

[Stephanie_Bond]

@Knight_of_BAAWA

@Stephanie Bond

Actually, you’re right - they should not have to leave as long as they’re abiding by the law prohibiting the initiation of force.

@Knight_of_BAAWA

Then the government has to go, since it’s a coercive monopoly.

You’re STILL confusing tenses of government, Steph.

@Stephanie Bond

But is it a monpoly on retaliatory force, or simply the final arbiter?

Both, according to you.

Let go of your desire for monopoly. Monopolies produce lower quality and higher prices. The only way to maintain the monopoly is to initiate force. You have been told that for weeks now, Steph. Weeks. Why is it not sinking in?

You are thinking as a businessman/private individual. A monopoly that is voluntarily maintained is clearly beyond your comprehension.

@Knight_of_BAAWA

@Stephanie Bond

If private arbitration does not produce results satisfactory to the parties, and by “satisfactory” I mean, the parties to the litigation agree and abide by the decision, then they have the option to go public and ask the government to review the whole dispute and make a ruling that is enforceable by law.

Why should there be a final arbiter which is a coercive monopoly?

That’s how it works. That’s why people should try to resolve their disputes privately. If the final arbiter has no right to use coercion to enforce judgments against those who initiated force, then how is anyone ever going to have real protection of their rights? There would be no punishment to fear. A private company can issue its ruling and the wrongdoer can ignore it. Then what?