I think we keep talking past each other. I am talking about morals.
Ask someone that lived in a communist country about how communist we are…
Again I do not think gradualism will get rid of the state…
Not at all, but then again I do not think there was free market capitalism in this country for over 200 years
Where did I argue that GOVERNMENT would reduce itself? I said the individuals have an interest to act in order to reduce government and subsequently keep it that way, I never indicated that the government would, I did say that it is foolish (maybe miscommunicated the point) to think that government would stop oppressing people. The tendency for history to repeat is uncanny, but I suppose you think it coincidental…
You purposely refuse to acknowledge that reality is reality…
I do not expect a home invasion, but does that mean that I should not prepare for the case that it could occur?
I do not expect traffic, but does that mean I am expecting it when I leave a little early every day for work?
No, a cult of personality works out the the same old tyranny with a new face…
The notion does not reciprocate, in my opinion, when you are free, that is all there is to it, once it is diminished by statism, you are no longer free, you can be given illusions, usually in the form of privileges at the whim of the state, but you are not free…
One cannot force people to be responsible, can we…
Killing may be too extreme an example for you…
You believe in the NAP, I assume…
Someone disregards this rule and takes your property by force, is he not free to do such in a free society?
If he is not, how is your society free?
If he is, is it not a matter of restitution for taking your property by force?
You cannot force him to not take from you by force (force him to be responsible), but you can apply consequence to the action of violating the NAP…
Which is what I was indicating when you said no…
I am really talking about the practical application of living a free life, and keeping it that way, which I do concede that morals are important to this…
I think that we view minimal government differently, and I am still thinking about this, so I will warn you, this is subject to change (like I said I am open to Anarchism)…
Voluntary government?
I know I was partially nagging you =] OTOH, I’d say your view of minimal gov’t is not wholly consistent, that’s why we view it differently.
And what would that entail? The moment you can join a government, or not (definition of voluntary), you have anarchy.
You are right, it is inconsistent, I am growing, so I can never say that it will be finished until it is in practice, which may never happen anyway…
I think that is the issue, how does one allow for individuals to choose government, while having the choice to not choose a government?
Not sure what you mean there - Maybe you can rephrase it ?
Do you mean that the ‘right to live under tyranny’ should not be violated…? Well, fine, if you want tyranny go for it. But you can’t impose it on your neighbor…
It supposes that there is an amount of the Human race that prefers government to none…
Ok so you think that revolution is the only means to achieve…a free state?
So there has never been a blackmarket in this country?
So your solution is to revolt then establish the very thing that was just revolted against?
It is no more idealistic then your nonsense of responsbility. Like I said, this is an ‘ideal’
Then you concede that you are no more ‘unfree’ if there was legislation throwing you in jail for no reason?
This is ridiculous. I’m not allowed to defend my property (an act of justified coercion) because you have a faulty definition of absolute freedom in a society? To answer your question, no, you are not ‘free’ to take my property or coerce me into slavery. In fact that is the whole point of the legal system. The restitution of the violation of my rights and the defense of my body and my property is me forcing you not to force me. Go peddle your Troskyite mentality elsewhere.
This seems upside down to me Harry. “To allow” presumes someone has the moral authority to provide permission. That’s the point. No one has that moral authority prior to their being a government. We’re all equal in our liberty. And after a government is formed, without explicit consent, there is still no moral authority. The very question of “allowing” is based upon not having liberty. So of course you are going to have troubles figuring out how to “allow liberty”, because you are not acknowledging it pre-exists everything else.
I’ve already addressed how we handle people who want government and people who don’t. Those who want government pay for it. Those who do not, do not pay for it. The “government” only has the authority to act for the parties that have paid for it, upon the parties that have paid for it.
No territorial monopolies. No legal monopolies. No ridiculous flag waving and nationalism.
This is really confused Harry.
One cannot have the freedom to aggress against someone else. It is rationally incoherent.
If someone aggresses against you, then we could take a theory like estoppel and apply it, saying that he has forfeited his own liberty by compromising yours.
Its Trotskite nonsense. We have to be pacifists towards those who coerce us.
Since the “black” market thrives on the involvement of social standard in the lives of individuals, it is semantically free from regualtion, but in honest, its existence is dependent on curbing the market to certain items…
There are no black goods without infringing on the rights of people to live as they choose…
Revolution…
Am I saying that violence is the only answer, not at all, but I am saying that I am open to the idea that regardless of the method of revolution, violence will be a potential, nay likely response from the government…
My solution is not to replace this government with itself, but with a better version of government, I know I can handle anarchy as you, or others, propose it, but I do not think it is realistic to assume that all people will, and with that you have the production of a government anyway, now how does a free society deal with a government it did not agree to coercing it?
Just because you are in the house as opposed to the field does not make you any less a slave, the size of your cage does not make you freer than another, the lack of a cage does…
In your ideal there is no legal “system” as it is a product of the state, and you do not want a state…
If restitution works as you claim it does, there should be no crime
The fact is you cannot stop a criminal from commiting a crime by simply having a restitution mechanism in place, it only tells him those that get caught get in trouble…
Oh really? The black market is infringing on the rights of individuals? Which rights are those?
Well I think you are delusional if you think you can better that which is already proven to be immoral. But go, seek to better it.
That does not answer my question but I realized that if you did answer my question you would contradict yourself in some capacity.
Actually The Public Sector, III: Police, Law, and the Courts - Murray Rothbard
Sage’s little list is already coming in handy
I never claimed restitution deters crime. Restitution is the very thing it is defined as. Compensation for a wrongful action against another.
This is a strawman, defending yourself from crime is not ‘restitution’ but according to your previous statement:
‘Someone disregards this rule and takes your property by force, is he not free to do such in a free society?’
A criminal is free to act in aggression towards you, if it is true he is free to commit such actions then why should he be penalized? There should be no legal resititution or punishment if he is free to commit such actions.
You do not live in a “nerf” world, crime will happen and that is a fact…
What I am saying is that in a free society, people are free to do as they choose, some of these actions have consequences in the society (violating the NAP), some have consequences personally (not producing anything), but there is no mechanism to stop them, which is not a bad thing, you cannot automatically assume everyone in the society is moral however…
Sure can, and it is coherent, when dealing with people we can acknowledge that there is a personal (not social) responsibility for the individual to not, as it is not profitable to do such, besides the reputation factor (people may boycott the perpetrator), there are restitution consequences for such actions. It does not mean the person does not have the freedom, but rather the freedom with responsibility…
Estoppel comes into play after restitution takes place, for the perpetrator to not be allowed restitution for being agrressed against in restitution, he is effectively estopped…
If you’re saying there will be criminals, then yes. Criminals disprove utopian positions.
If you mean humans have free choice, then yes. Since we have free choice, an NAP individual/society tries to cultivate responsibility so people choose wisely aka in a non-coercive way. But criminals will happen, which disproves utopian positions in any society being advocated.
Estoppel comes into play once the criminal has been caught and apprehended.
Let me explain better…
Without goods being made “black” by an authority there is no black market, I have been there, a time ago…
When I was part of said market, I did not care what government was up to, as I would always draw profit, because what I provided would always be illegal, therefore, without the rights of the individual to live as he chooses the Black Market thrives…
I think the sentence before the one you quoted answered the question better, NO, you are no “more free” not being in prison while living under a government that can put you in prison for no cause. Just because you are not there yet does not make you less “unfree”, you are still not free at all in either case…
What you are providing is a platitude, “at least they (gov’t) has not done it to you yet”.
The link errored on me, I will go to the list and look at it, I saw it before, I forgot to bookmark it, but I will find it…
So…
People are free to do these things, so long as they compensate for their wrongful actions?
Are you claiming there is something that will in total stop aggression, if not, he is free to do such and deal with the consequences of doing such…
Thank you, this is my point
your welcome [:)]