Most certainly. Are you contending that courts cannot be private companies? If so why not?
-
What you’ve got there is a pamphlet of ideas you think should be enforced. But without some means to enforce them, all you’ve got is a list.
-
It is true that governments, especially big governments, can seize large portions of private property whenever they feel it necessary. HOWEVER, if government remains small, then it becomes much more difficult for your property to be seized. Additionally, if the law of the land is just and if property law is clear and concise and fair, it stands to reason that property owners will be more secure in their property than they would be if, as you suggest, there were no laws at all. Property, like all things, is something that can be taken away. So something has to protect it. Just like life. Armies are protectors of property if used properly. If not used properly, they are not. I agree with you on that.
The Myth of National Defense By Hans-Hermann Hoppe.
Alright, I think you’ve got enough homework for now.
Sure, they could be. But then you’ve got a problem. Whoever hires the court and pays for the services of said court will probably find favorable ruling by said court. There’s a clear conflict of interest is what I’m saying. Not that judges aren’t for sale now.
What ensures the limit on the size of government?
Alright, well I’ve got one for you then, since you intend to run behind your books. Read War by Azar Gat.
We’re supposed to. By voting for the right people.
One: A possibility however this court would then be labeled as corrupt and lose business.
Two: conceding point one, do you think the government being its own judge and jury is objective?
That supposes that everyone has something to lose, no one has anything to gain by enabling government and that all voters are in agreement as to the size and scope of government at any given time. This also supposes that government will actually listen to you and actually carry out what they were voted in for which they are under no obligation to do yet retain the power as your supposed representative.
-
I think that sounds nice but that you’re going to keep running into the same problem over and over again.
-
Absolutely not. But we the people are supposed to be the final judge of the government. We’ve obviously been doing a lousy job lately since guys like Ron Paul remain third party candidates.
It’s true that there are lots of assumptions in my arguments. But there are lots of assumptions in yours. My bet is that people will do whatever they think is in their own personal interest. And maybe I’m naive, but I think that means voting for people who advocate minimal government. But then again, that hasn’t happened lately. So maybe your “it’s a 1 or a 0” argument sort of makes sense. But I think the correct solution will be somewhere approaching the middle. Although still leaning towards a 2 or 3.
Well free will. Nothing is guaranteed
Ron Paul is a swell guy on ecomonics however his social philosophy is truly lacking. It is simple logic to exclaim that a monopoly on the system of law by the government will always rule in favor of the extension of powers
Run behind books? I assumed that was a genuine question and not a rhetorical device.
Yeah, run behind books, because instead of give me your answer, you delegated the argument elsewhere. What do you honestly think would happen if you had a decentralized colony?
By all means please point them out.
People act on their subjective desires. Socialists vote for more government, Conservatives for theocratic. It is a falsehood to assume that everyone wants minimal government.
Give the articles I linked you a read. They are truly compelling. Small government individuals stumble on here frequently and they are usually in agreement with us in a week. My personal favorite is Lysander Spooner’s No Treason: The Constitution of No Authority. I was in the Ron Paul movement [like I assume you are now] and after reading that I instantly proclaimed myself an anarchist.
Look at the history.
Compare the Roman occupation of Germany, stateless, to the American occupation of Germany, with a state.
Invaders capture states and yield them against their citizens. An invader into a stateless region does not have that privilege.
Anarchist Cain:
1.) I think the first assumption you have wrong is that human nature works well with anarchy. I mean, plain and simple, I think it doesn’t.
2.) How are you going to eliminate the socialist desire to have a state that governs in your decentralized region and how is said region going to defend itself from the human desire to escape death which ultimately leads to the desire for religion? And how, also is it going to defend itself from the military state that hasn’t decentralized. You’ve got the prisoner’s dilemma here.
3.) I promise I’ll look over what you guys have showed me here. I’m not trying to be disrespectful or anything. I just think that when you say something like “we should never have fought Hitler” it comes off as…very disrespectful.
Ok, well, they’ll still take your land. And then you’ll have to start all over. And then, when you’ve built yourself up again, someone will invade you. You will need defense of some kind, don’t you think?
You mean like a militia or a voluntary, privately funded army? Yeah, I agree.
Why doesn’t it?
If Socialists want to have their little utopias I care not. However, they cannot compel me to join in them. That is the point of the Anarchy we preach, volunteerism. Religion does not worry me and who will conquer a decentralized people?
That’s fine. I admit that when I first heard Walter Block speak about libertarianism I thought the man was vulgar in its usage. However, when you ponder the question further you see the point that is being expressed.