I’ll readily admit that I am no expert on PDAs, and despite that, I still believe anarchy is a better solution, because I have more confidence in my ability to defend myself, and to solve property disputes with my neighbors without going to court (compromise).
We’re already at that point. The state facilitates it. It facilitates feeding, arming and paying a large PDA (the military) and investing untold trillions in “offensive” weapons development only because it has been given authority. Authority to tax and to create/interpret law.
In order for some evil PDA to reach the same level of stupidity, it would need literally millions of people voluntarily contributing to it, subsidizing and encouraging it’s growth. History has shown that when people are directly taxed for war, weapons, etc they resist and push back. The only way to pay for the warfare state, is inflation. A PDA could not inflate, because it would not have control of the monetary system.
Again, only the parties involved have final say in this matter. If guilt cannot be conclusively proven by two out of three courts, that is the end of it. If someone refuses to submit to any court or any arbiter, then they’re SOL. Why? Because the courts only exist to prove guilt, for the benefit of everyone else in a community, and for the benefit of the claimant, to insure that others realize that they went through the proper procedures to prove their case - that is their only role, as the right to restitution/punishment lies with the victim. If the defendant has no will to prove their innocence via a court, they’ll be an ostracized outlaw, with their credit cards rendered ineffective, denied access onto many areas commonly open to individuals (e.g. malls) etc. They’re free to appeal to another arbiter if they believe they’ve been wronged. If the arbiter has a reputation for impartiality, and if the claimant still refuses to submit to it, one may question the veracity of their claims, thus it is in their interest to submit too. Insurance agencies in all likelihood would have pre-agreed upon courts to make use of, and these courts would have agreements with third courts in the event of disagreement between themselves. You’ve yet, in this whole thread, to offer a single reason why people should be forced to patronize a court they do not find agreeable. Hoppe deals with all this in Democracy - the God that Failed, especially the matter of courts of differing systems. Again, your own position logically implies world government…
Here’s the deal: when you offer proof why I should accept the state in this capacity, and how it would avoid this scenario (which, empirically speaking, it hasn’t), I might answer your question (hint: try proving AGW beyond reasonable doubt.)
It’s been proven. You’re just too lazy to do the reading, and too addicted to government to see otherwise. And you do indeed not question it. The burden of proof is on you to show why you have the right to coerce others into accepting this monopolist called government.
“It’s been proven. You’re just too lazy to do the reading, and too addicted to government to see otherwise. And you do indeed not question it. The burden of proof is on you to show why you have the right to coerce others into accepting this monopolist called government.”
How has it been proven? Just because someone wrote a theory in a book does not make it proof.
“Again, only the parties involved have final say in this matter. If guilt cannot be conclusively proven by two out of three courts, that is the end of it. If someone refuses to submit to any court or any arbiter, then they’re SOL. Why? Because the courts only exist to prove guilt, for the benefit of everyone else in a community, and for the benefit of the claimant, to insure that others realize that they went through the proper procedures to prove their case - that is their only role, as the right to restitution/punishment lies with the victim. If the defendant has no will to prove their innocence via a court, they’ll be an ostracized outlaw, with their credit cards rendered ineffective, denied access onto many areas commonly open to individuals (e.g. malls) etc. They’re free to appeal to another arbiter if they believe they’ve been wronged. If the arbiter has a reputation for impartiality, and if the claimant still refuses to submit to it, one may question the veracity of their claims, thus it is in their interest to submit too. Insurance agencies in all likelihood would have pre-agreed upon courts to make use of, and these courts would have agreements with third courts in the event of disagreement between themselves. You’ve yet, in this whole thread, to offer a single reason why people should be forced to patronize a court they do not find agreeable. Hoppe deals with all this in Democracy - the God that Failed, especially the matter of courts of differing systems. Again, your own position logically implies world government…”
Why would people not do business with someone just because some court said not to? Would the money or goods they offer be any less valuable than someone that does not have a court mandate against them? How could you be so certain they would be “an ostracized outlaw”? Any besides, would someone not want that more than being jailed or killed?
Instead of arguing why statism doesn’t work, argue how anarchism COULD work. Admit it, there is no perfect system, state or anarchy.
Okay, and by that standard minarchism is not only not proven, but it’s a failure too. See how that works?
Hey, if you want to do business with an outlaw, by all means go ahead! Most people, on the other hand, do not. This assumes the court is respectable and has good standing in the public. If it doesn’t, it will be seen as a mere scam. Something that cannot be said of government courts. As for the outlaw, if they’re something on the order of a murderer or rapist, they might get killed anyway, provided the claimant has satisfactorily proven the matter in a court, in which case they can take action without the worry of being seen as a criminal themselves. You need to rethink the nature of both the law and the government, because neither works exactly as you think it does.
Perhaps you’re dense, but I have already said it myself that there is no “perfect” system. However, a monopoly over law and order is bound to be worse than competition in it, as I and others have argued. If you want entire essays/books on the matter, go read them. Otherwise you’re just expecting us to spend our time trying to educate you, something you’re too lazy to do yourself.
haha, you are quite silly my friend. To be honest, I have given no real thought to anarchy until someone for some reason decided to post about it on a thread I created that had nothing to do with this topic. Which is fine, I am always for intelligent discussion, but instead of that what I got was as someone eloquently put, “A pissing contest”. Instead of attempting to explain to me your version of how a theoritical anarchial society would work, you just call me ignorant and lazy. You pretend you are higher and mighter than everyone because you believe that such society, which has never been tested, would work, and you feel that anyone that is skeptical of such a society is an a lazy idiot.
Come on, you think it is right to denounce me for being skeptical? Because some people wrote some theories in a book and some people posted things on an online forum I should automatically accept their views? No, because I have serious questions about how such a society would work, and if it would work better than an extremely limited government. Maybe it would, I am not ruling out that possiblity, but you cannot sit there and say it would when it has never been tried before. The extremely limited government I am talking about has not been tried either, as governments were given the ability to increase taxes, write new laws and regulate society. I do not know if this is the perfect solution, I simply know that it is better than the system we are under right now. And you should be with me in atleast some extent, becaues the system I am thinking of would most likely be a prerequiste for a peaceful creation of the anarchial society you propose.
No, it’s been explained to you. If you want more information, go read the sources I mentioned, if you want to learn. There’s no pretensions of hight or might involved, other than those of minarchists who think they are exempt from educating themselves on any matter, and expect others to do it for them.
Come on, do you think it is right to denounce a theory you have a scant understanding of? Yeah…
Then, in the interest of having those questions answered, go and read the materials that do so in depth. I have already provided general outlines. You’re getting pissy because your objections apply with greater devastation to any and all states. So, since you say you have serious questions, how about you actually get serious, go listen to some podcasts or read the relevant materials, then return once you have a working knowledge of the topic, ok?
You propose outlawing competition in the provision of law and order. Why should I be “with” you?
“Come on, do you think it is right to denounce a theory you have a scant understanding of? Yeah…”
Exactly, it is a theory, so you yourself have scant understanding of it because it has never been put into practice. There needs to be PROOF that something like this will work, before anyone will believe you. Karl Marx had his theories, and in practice it failed miserably. You really do remind me of a socialist, not your theories of course, but in your general manner. You believe you are completely right and everyone else is completely wrong and a total fool for not believing you.
How can you claim to have a valid understanding of something that has never existed? And given your extremely poor responses to how this system would remedy certain situation, I doubt you have a working knowledge of these theories yourself.
Well, he’s got you there. All you anarchists might as well give up. No one is going to try this without proof and without anyone trying it you can’t get any proof. Well, at least you fought the good fight for a while.
Clearly you misunderstood me. I do not mean that it should never be tested. But I simply mean that until this theory is tested and then tested again and verified by others, everything you are saying is just speculation. To claim it is the best system without ever seeing it in practice is lunacy.
You have a lab set up somewhere for this kind of stuff? Even if there was a test run of this you couldn’t conclusively say it was better or worse than anything else unless every other variable except for the form of government were held constant. This, of course, is completely impossible. We can’t conclusively say that communism is worse than democracy either. Maybe if the soviets had tried democracy they would have failed at that too, and if we had a communist government it would have worked out better. All you can do is logically look at the incentives each form gives to the people. Any form of a state grants power above and beyond a normal citizen to regular people. Human nature being what it is, the people in charge will seek to expand their power.
"You have a lab set up somewhere for this kind of stuff? Even if there was a test run of this you couldn’t conclusively say it was better or worse than anything else unless every other variable except for the form of government were held constant. "
Clearly, but you could see the postives and negatives of such a situation. It would not be a perfect answer, but it would be something you could draw conclusions on, instead of simple theory.
What, you want a working example or something, skip down to the part where they discuss Xeer law.
How much time would’ve been saved if you didn’t just automatically dismiss the knowledge held on this site and searched out articles like this on your own instead of getting all pissy?
? automatically dismiss? Obviously I am skeptical, everyone default view of anything untested should be skepticism. Why should I blindly believe what you say? If your ideas cannot stand up to my questions, then they do not deserve to stand at all. If they can, they they do. It is as simple as that. Try not getting so pissy when people don’t automatically agree with you.
I don’t know man, I seem to recall an ad hominem directed at me not too long ago that was based on citing information on this site.
I really don’t see it as our job do hand feed you every small detail when all you have to do is read some of the suggested books and whatnot and you will find the answers you seek. You don’t even have to agree with it.
So why don’t you answer the question I asked earlied instead of dodging it, eh? I really don’t see anything coming out of you except a constant stream of ever increasingly less applical questions instead of actually discussing the subject honestly.
I would like to be convinced, but what I would need would be real-life examples of how this system would work on an everyday basis. Surely a government monopoly system is able to adapt, but how would we assure that, with justice in public hands, that tyranny of the majority would not become prevalent? How could we be sure that those with means could not use this system to their benefit at the hands of those without.
Answer that.
You may note that I have answered it pre-reworded with a link to the Xeer legal system, why don’t you do the same?
----edit----
Fixed the quote to reflect the true intent of the last sentence by adding a ‘not’ to ‘could not use’.
Karl Marx’s theories were demonstrably mistaken. You, on the other hand, are resorting to dismissing what anarchists have to say by saying it’s “just” theory. Well so is most market economics, and so is minarchism. Big deal.
Sigh, yet another miserable attempt at an ad hominem attack. Actually, they rebuked all your ill-considered “objections”. How can I have a valid understanding? Because I have studied how the market works. Only fools rely purely on what has been to guide them, and minarchists can certainly claim no superiority here over anarchists for all the reasons outlined.
Of course. And the state is the perfect means to do that.
Let’s suppose that’s the case. So, instead of an institution which has almost absolute power to destroy i.e. the state, there will be some organization which has limited(or very limited) power to destroy. Which system is better ?
You need to take a closer look to the link between what you call ‘theory’ and practice. Some things can be ruled out a-priori, without recourse to ‘empirical’ proof. And lack of empirical proof doesn’t mean that some other things are impossible.
You know, before planes were built, a lot of ‘clever’ people thought that planes were nonsense.
Yeah. Except that libertarians debunked his theories and knew beforehand what would happen if those theories were applied.
God man, you are a douche. This is not an ad hominmd attack, as it has nothing to do with my argument. You simply do not appear capable of having an intelligent discussion because all you care about is trying to prove your smarter than other people.
Good for you man, if someone doesnt agree with you why dont you just keep calling them stupid. Surefire way to bring people to your cause (which you desperatly need if you ever want to put your theories into practice). Good luck running a 5 person anarchial system, sounds pretty good to me.
A word of advice, instead of attacking people and being consistanly rude throughout your posts, you could try being polite and have an intelligent conversation. Then maybe everything wont resort to a pissing contest. I am done with this thread, as clearly Jim it is impossible to have an intelligent discussion with you involved.
rixoss, it seems as if you think that any disagreement with you is a personal attack. I don’t see anything in the post prior to yours other than reasoned disagreement. If you would point out exactly where people have been asses, I’m sure it would do a lot more good than just making broad accusations of persucution, when this forum is, after all, for having arguments in.