No problem. I haven’t been posting lately either.
With all due respect, it’s hard for me to address this because it doesn’t seem to me like you really understood the point I was making. Let me put it this way: analyzing “power” in a monolithic sort of way, where there are no distinctions being made between one person’s “power” and another person’s, is only going to get you so far. I say that because, based on your statement “To me amount and kind go hand in hand”, this can only imply that you consider “amount of power” and “kind of power” to be the same thing.
In fact, at this point I feel obliged to ask you just how exactly you define the word “power”. It seems to me that you’re using it in two different ways at the same time: 1) possessing the physical ability or means to do something, and 2) being allowed to do something. Notice that these two things are not the same at all.
So with that in mind, let me also ask you why you think it’s okay for some people (such as the President and people acting on his behalf) to invade a house that (ostensibly) belongs to someone else, abduct him from it, and throw him into a cage, but it’s not okay for most people to do that same thing?
My point is, while Steve Jobs is considered to be allowed to force people off of his own property (again, ostensibly), he’s not considered to be allowed to force people off of their own property. But the President (more accurately, his agents) is allowed to do this. I don’t see how this can make sense to you from a moral/ethical standpoint. Also, I don’t see how you can equate Steve Jobs and Barack Obama in terms of leadership, since Mr. Obama is not only generally considered to be allowed to do many more things than Mr. Jobs is, but those kinds of things that Mr. Obama is generally considered to be allowed to do that Mr. Jobs is not are qualitatively different from those things which both are generally considered to be allowed to do.
Hopefully this all makes sense - let me know if you’re confused anywhere and I’ll do my best to help you.
Okay, so you don’t think anyone owns his home, land, etc. That’s fine, I can go with that. So in that case, do you see this as being okay? And if the government actually owns everything (or at least all the land/buildings we live and work in), why do people talk about “owning real estate”? Do you think maybe most people believe they do own land and buildings when, in the eyes of the government, they actually don’t? Why wouldn’t the government correct them on that point?
If the government owns all real estate, and you consider this to be okay (i.e. morally/ethically legitimate), then you should likewise consider it okay for the government to charge people anything and everything for the privilege of living upon its land, and you should also consider it okay for the government to impose any and all regulations on people for the privilege of doing business upon its land. The only possible moral/ethical limitation you could logically impose on government would be to not assault or murder people. Otherwise, everything should be fair game to you. So given all of this, what are your arguments for minarchism?
Okay. In that case, how do you distinguish between “statism” and “state”? Or don’t you distinguish between them?
Regardless, one thing to notice about the above is that it involves a monopoly over the exclusive area. That is, within the area, the only limits on legitimate force exercised by people inside that area are those placed by the organization (i.e. group of people) who owns it. In other words, the organization that exercises power is also the judge of its own power. Tell me, where then are the incentives for it to not exercise power whenever it wants to?
How do you know that?
Would you agree that a constitution is a contract that is binding on future generations? Do you think such a contract is valid? Why or why not?
I was questioning your assumption that your hypothetical minarchist government must cover the same area as the current US covers. There’s no reason to make that assumption, as there’s no guarantee of it holding true in the future.
Wait, why are you now including fire departments under your definition of “minarchy”?
That aside, how do you know that this government will have a hard time telling that to the population at large?
Oh, I see. So your definition of “privatization” doesn’t concern actual transfer of ownership - it just concerns “farming out” the management of government-owned assets to non-government agents (after all, not everyone works for the government). I guess you could say that the “privately owned real estate” is really the same thing. There’s a word for this: feudalism.
But if they don’t own the land, they’d need some kind of permission from the government to do that first, right?
But that allows for the possibility of local communities and states to pass non-minarchist laws. Based on your earlier comments, that certainly doesn’t jive with your view of minarchism, does it?
I should’ve been more explicit with my earlier question. What I was really attacking was the concept of there being only certain “nations” or even certain “societies”. For example, the existence of a supposed “American nation” is only valid when considering it to be the same as “the group of people who are US citizens”.
That aside, you’re again arguing from ignorance in claiming that centralized forces will always and necessarily win over decentralized forces in the future, based on historical experience.
Okay. So now my question is, do you think it’s possible to constrain aggression by non-aggressive methods? Or do you think that can only be done by “fighting fire with fire”?
With all due respect, you don’t seem to have understood my point here. Indeed, your phrasing “the likely hood [sic] of the possibility of [Big Foot’s] existence” seems to betray this lack of understanding. If something hasn’t been proven impossible, then it must be possible. Furthermore, no amount of likelihood can be attached to possibility per se, because possibility per se is the same as likelihood per se! So whether you think or feel that it’s possible is irrelevant as far as logic is concerned. But maybe you don’t care about logic - if so, then it’ll be pointless for me to continue debating you.
The thing is, there’s no logic there at all.
I thought I told you that was an argument from ignorance. Why are you making it again? Are you really not concerned with logic whatsoever? Is this just a way for you to stick your fingers in your ears and retreat back into the beliefs that you’re comfortable with?
This is just another rephrasing of your argument from ignorance. Sorry.
How do you distinguish between “aggression” and “defense”? Or don’t you? I mean, do you consider a person driving an intruder off of his land to be necessarily engaging in aggression?
Why does it matter whether a truly voluntary society has existed in history? Would an absence thereof make it any less desirable to you? Why or why not?
I’m going to again attack this line of, frankly, stay-inside-the-box thinking. Can you identify which groups of people are the only groups that can ever be considered “countries” or “nations”? What is your basis for identifying those groups of people and no other? For example, why don’t you think we can speak of a “nation of redheads” or a “nation of twentysomethings”?
How can a government be guaranteed to hold itself accountable every time you want it to?
My questions and comments about constitutions apply here as well.
That’s good. I invite you to think outside of the box. Don’t limit yourself to only thinking about things in terms of what exists today. Thinking about things in a more abstract way will let you attain a deeper level of understanding about the world. Also, I’m sorry if I’ve been harsh at any point above, but I don’t want you to simply repeat the same logical fallacies even after they’ve been pointed out to you as such.