Attorneys are private enterprise now.
Your answer doesn’t follow the case all the way through.
What happens when someone initiates force? How do you deal with it? How do you enforce the NAP? How do you make someone pay what they agreed to pay? How do you deal with rape, murder, fraud?
How about a tally of all the things the government is no longer doing.
It’s not providing “free” education, health care, social security, welfare, roads, road maintenance, swimming pools, bridges, energy, tourism, unemployment insurance, old age pension, bailouts!, garbage collection, subsidies, housing. Just to name a few off the top of my head.
It is no longer enforcing tariffs, quotas, minimum wage, mandatory employer pension contributions, zoning laws, age of majority.
It is no longer collecting income tax, sales tax, payroll tax, property tax, inheritance tax, capital gains tax, and whatever other taxes there are.
The only job it is supposed to be doing is protecting individual rights. It is not supposed to be an initiator of force.It has no business interfering in the economy as the preceding lists demonstrate it now does, in a myriad of ways.
Oh there’s a relief. The clients are scrutinizing them. That really relieves my concerns…NOT.
How about the victims of your “clients”? How about the guy whose door you broke down to retrieve stolen goods, only you’ve targeted the wrong person? He’s not your client. What is he supposed to do, hire his own thug to break down your door, your client’s? Your system is subjective through and through.
Yep.
I’ll say the same to you. Be honest about your system - it leads to lynch mobs and complete breakdown. You have a mistaken belief that everyone will just abide by the NAP without any problems whatsoever. The workings of the free market cannot cure those kinds of problems.
Ah yes - buiilding a bomb. You do that. You build your bomb, since that’s actually all you are really interested in, isn’t it? Be honest. Everything else is just a cover for running amok.
There’s a good reason “anarchy” is defined as a state of lawlessness and disorder. See also “misgoverned, chaotic.”
See, the end result of objective law and a free market may APPEAR to be anarchic, but in fact it is not, because there is a mechanism to deal with those who break the law. In your system there is none.
The separation of state and the economy is vital to achieve prosperity. The eradication of all government, however, will achieve the opposite of what you claim.
Sorry, but you are wrong on this. Individual rights must be recognized and respected by law. They are not goods to be marketed.
My answer is right before your eyes in the real world. What do you mean follow it all the way through? The only way that can happen is to write a whole book on what people do day to day.
call 9/11 Don’t you know? I’m being serious are you? You didn’t even read this post if you’re asking me these questions again. Apparently you don’t know what a police, attorney, and judge are.
Well, I have this tally going cause your scenario began with just a defensive force of people (army). Now it’s up to prosecutors, registrar personnel (for numerous kinds of properties including houses and cars), judges, police force, army(navy, air force, marines), FBI, Internal Investigation Unit, factories to make weapons, border patrol (including passport registry), and more to come I’m sure.
Sure this list is shorter but you hold all the guns.
Stephanie yours is subjective. Yours is not objective. Those are people governing your government correct? I say this cause again, you try to use objective as a justification, but without qualifiers what you mean by objective could be anything. It’s near meaningless without qualifiers.
I want to hear the answer to this Stephanie.
This is basically extortion. Use my system or you won’t be happy. I can register with someone else. No one needs a monopoly on registration.
First, this is an Ad Hominem, hopefully you understand it is a logical fallacy, and stop doing it. Second, I have been operating my own business since 2002, and I have been in business (management) since 1996. So please don’t lecture me on the real world. When it comes to credentials, I don’t need them, but I have them.
Anarchy is freedom. At this point on this forum, you should be able to recognize that anarchy is absolute freedom, and any suggestion less than that (ie. yours) is a restraint on freedom. I am only committed to anarchy insofar as I support non-violence and voluntary exchange as absolutes. So to attack my position on anarchy, is to attack these things.
Which further backs up why I claimed you were a soft socialist. You are a planner, an authoritarian. You’re someone who thinks man can be mathematically modeled, that one size fits all, and that everyone needs to agree in order for things to work smoothly.
I am not the one compromising the ideals of liberty. I am not the one proposing systems of authority and control. And I am certainly not the one lacking in morals or imagination.
All rights are derived from property rights. Do you understand this?
Which country? Canada or the US? Why do countries even matter? They are just legal fictions, lines drawn on a map. With regards to voluntary exchange, you are the one proposing monopoly, not me. Check your premises.
This is a strawman because we both (should) know that it is impossible to predict the outcome of a free market. If you do not understand this, it’s time for you to get into some Austrian Economics. The entire notion of planning what an economy needs, or forcing it into a vision is flawed. It is how all tyrannies begin as populist movements. You want to make the world a better place, so you propose government. The group with the monopoly power of the gun. And from there it is all downhill.
If you imply there is only one way to protect rights, no I don’t understand that. I believe there are many ways to protect many interpretations of rights. As long as it is voluntary, it’s ok.
I realize I have mounted the strongest challenge to you, because unlike the others I am not fixated on arguing definitions, and I appreciate your replying. It’s courageous, even if you’re holding a lot of false premises as true. Maybe we can work through some of them, expose the fallacies and get to the point where I learn something interesting from you because that will be the payoff for me in this scenario.
First, lets drop the word objective. Objective is very specific in its uses when considering all possible arguments. It means something is an object, independent both of person observing and of the entities surrounding. Also, government isn’t a means, it’s an institution. So, instead lets rephrase the sentence as such: a government is an institution which has the means to protect property rights by enumeration of valid ownership via the method of registration of property and its owners. It’s a big lengthy, but it clarifies what is suggested, or atleast what I conceive of as suggested.
The objectivity only comes from the fact that property and its owners are objects of observation, thus the only real objective method/means of protection of property is the individual and collective agreement to respect and defend property from theft and vandalism. Whether you call it government (as an institution) or Joe’s Insurance Emporium the behavior is still the same; no member of the possible collective together or alone cannot initiate force. Which also means it’s not really a government as it cannot initiate force to force others to join it (without violating property and associated rights) nor exclude others from forming their own collectives/organizations to fulfill similar defense of their property(ies). So, it’s not a monopoly, these organizations/collectives, and these organizations can’t really retaliate either beyond repelling an aggressor, so they’re not definitionally what you call government. Especially since government by definition is an enforced monopoly with full right to utilize retaliatory force (and so on).
If one doesn’t aggress on another then one is defaulting to NAP, implicitly. NAP is simply a description of a range of human behaviors that lead to stable societies, it’s the bare bones of what it takes to keep them together. Without it, there’s no possible way humans or similar animals can effectively survive. And in situations where there are those in the population that disregards NAP, two basic ways exist to deal with the problem with both summarized in the previous paragraph.
So, I don’t see any logic in asserting government is either necessary or moral to have in existence.
Semantic arguments are some of the most important arguments in philosophy.
You do realize that this is an anti-free market statement? You don’t think clients can choose the firms they deal with, but somehow those people can choose the government they deal with?
The entire notion of the free market is customer empowerment. It’s the foundation of a free society (voluntary exchange). That you scoff at it says a lot about your understanding of freedom and liberty.
Why would anyone break down anyone’s door? There is no incentive to use violence in retribution when the goal is RESTITUTION.
Yes it is subjective, in that these situations in most cases will be resolved voluntarily, either person-to-person, pda-to-pda or some variant thereof. The escalation to violence is something a monopoly state, which has no incentive to provide peace, would do.
How so? How does peaceful voluntary interaction lead to complete breakdown? How does the right to absolutely own private property lead to lynch mobs?
No, I don’t. But most people will, because it’s a natural human thing to cooperate, share and use selection. You might regard man as inherently evil, in need of a billy club over his head at all times, but my view of humanity is not so myopic. I believe that man is capable of great things when he is freed from oppression, and that is precisely what anarchism and the NAP are about. The end of “institutionalized” oppression, which ironically, is exactly what you are proposing. Institutions that have a monopoly on force.
As I said, a socialist. Translated, you just said : “Freedom cannot cure those kinds of problems”
Stephanie, that’s a strawman, which is a logical fallacy. I thought you were about being rational?
Non-violence = running amok? How much longer will you continue to repeat this blatantly false assertion? You’re the objectivist, right? You’re the one who holds rational thought to the highest point? Then why are you using fallacies and plain lies over and over in this debate?
Anarchy is without rulers. Every man rules himself. Anarchy is not lawless, and is based on spontaneous (not state enforced) order. People voluntarily choose to work together, they are not forced to work together.
You haven’t proposed a free market. You are proposing central command.
And the assertion that “my system” has no mechanism is another irrational claim.
Just eliminate the state, it’s deadweight on free people.
Prove it.
I’m not wrong because you’re only making assertions. And most of your assertions are either logical fallacies, or dishonest misrepresentations.
All rights are property rights. And all property is scarce, hence the need for markets to service them. This is basic, basic, basic economics.
The free market is not some ideal. It is the rational structure for dealing with a world of scarce resources. I think a mistake you may be making is putting ideals ahead of rationality.
Stephanie has done a great job of shifting and obfuscating definitions. Rather than try to corner her on what her terms mean, it is much more effective to directly challenge her ideas, regardless of what she calls them.
I think her idea is known to most of us here. I called it a Military State. You called it central command. She’ll say it’s voluntary, but meanwhile it holds the monopoly on force. Beatin’ a dead horse, etc, etc…
You have the paradoxical belief that the NAP must be violated in order to protect people from violations of the NAP.
Agreed. However…
Agree. The protection of those rights, however, is a service, and therefore may be sold on the market. Looks like another paradox.
What I mean by following it all the way through is, synthesize all the examples and come up with the essence of the sequence of events. How does it get to the point where force is necessary to compel the wrongdoer to make good on his wrongdoing?
How it works now is first of all the allegations must be proven in a court of law. There are two standards, one for civil and a more exacting one for criminal. In civil, proof is determined on a balance of probabilities, whereas in criminal it is beyond a reasonable doubt,.
Determining which side has right on its side and the punishment or remedy that follows as a result is also part of the judge’s job. If the accuser is wrong, he has to bear the court costs of the party he wrongly accused. If the accuser is right, then the judge determines the punishment, which requires taking all the facts of the case into account, character references, severity of offense, as well as previous sentences handed to others for similar conduct.
Many court results are appealed by one or other of the parties. When all appeal avenues have been exhausted, there may be a term of imprisonment, or a fine or other damages or monetary awards, for which the guilty party is responsible. The court can order assets to be put into receivership in order to pay the debts.
These are serious outcomes, of course. Also known as sell all you own.
When smaller sums are involved the non-compliant unsuccessful litigant might choose to disappear rather than pay what he owes. The cost of pursuing a petty offense can outweigh the value of what was taken or ruined.
There is actually a dearth of honest jurisprudence because the cost of litigation has never been properly the onus of the litigants.
Courts don’t have to work exactly this way.
Hello…
I am new in this community…
Hello everyone… 
Hello! [:D]