Anyways, I’m hungry, I’m gonna go eat. Just thought I’d tell you guys that I’d been thinking about your philosophy.
Dictatorship is a great way to get what you want if you are the dictator. However, you seem to be concerning yourself with the whole of any society. Seems like moral reasoning to me by any other name.
Infrastructure? Supply and demand. If people want a road to get from point A to point B and have the means to pay for it some enterprising cement man will build one. If people like trains and entrepreneurs perceive the investment in railroads will make them money they will do it and thus meet someone else’s demands. Is the objection more complex still?
Insurance. Simply put, you would have yourself and your property insured against crime and war.
Crime: Should someone steal your Rolex you put in a claim to your insurance company. The insurance company would then hire detectives to find the perp and ask him to return the watch. Should the accused deny their guilt and not wish to hand it over we reach a problem. Should the detectives confiscate it without proof he will call his insurance company who will call other detectives. Not good, not profitable and a big mess. What is to be done? Well, the two insurance companies agree on some arbiter they consider nonbiased (i.e a privately run court) to decide the matter. It will hear proof as to the proper title to the Rolex and determine who owns it like a normal court would. As a condition of arbitration, both the parties and the insurance companies would agree to be bound by the arbitration.
War: Similarly, you would insure your life and property against the threat of war. Your insurance company would charge you a premimum based on the threat of war, how much damage would be done, etc. etc. similar to an insurance company insuring you against the risk of a flood. Now if Ace Insurance hires Gunny Defense to defend it’s client this acts as a detterent allowing it to lower it’s premiums and reap reward on the market.
These are the most barebones basic arguments. While myself and others will be happy to answer your questions I suggest this short ) exposition on the topic.
Chaos Theory by Robert P. Murphy
This book inclues a 28 page essay on Private Law (Courts, etc.) and a 20 page essay on Private Defense. I hope you read one or both at your convenience.
It’s irrelevant whether you spend time in jail? Interesting… well hate to burst your bubble bubba, but in a Libertarian society it’s going to be harder for you to get away with violating someone elses rights.. Justice would be infinitely more accessible.
So you’re a libertine then. I love it how you guys try talk the talk, but never walk the walk… to scared of the consequences lol.
Oh sheesh, we’re not going back to might makes right again, are we?
I agree with this quote. If government is evil, then there is only one choice left: anarchism.
To keep this debate simple I would argue that government is immoral and evil because it necessitates the initiation of force. If you accept that initiating force is evil, then you must reject the state; the two are mutually exclusive.
Why should you accept the notion that the initiation of force is wrong? For me it’s easy.
When looking at amounts of anything, there are but three options: some, all, or none. I reject the notion that all initiatory coercion is acceptable, because it would obviously devolve into chaos, where anything is justifiable, at any time, under any circumstances.
As for some initiatory coercion being justifiable, I would argue that this notion goes against our human inclinations towards peace, and generally what we are taught as kids (e.g. don’t hit your friends). A better argument, though, is that there is no system for determining when aggression is acceptable that stands up to any sort of scrutiny. Is it acceptable when preferences are weighed against each other? How about happiness? Should we maximize happiness?
Can you measure happiness? [;)]
See what I mean: they’re easy to pick apart. Accepting that no initiatory coercion is acceptable not only makes sense to me, but it’s the only consistent position that can stand up to scrutiny. Until someone shows me a better system, or proves that it can be objectively established as a right, then I’m going with the NAP and market anarchism.
p.s. There are books out there on polycentric law, private protection, etc. There is a strong utilitarian case to be made for anarchism. Start here with Professor Hoppe’s great list of reading on voluntaryism.
Hope this helps.
Dictatorships are undesirable to me. I’m not going to be the dictator.
All that sounds nice, but I can’t imagine it ever working.
Anyways, I’m out of here.
So what? We’re about liberty.
Might makes possible. There is no right and wrong. Just what works and what doesn’t. Force is messy.
So why have a system that limits liberty arbitrarily?
Ah. Moral nihilism. Let me know how that works when someone steals all your stuff and then you hypocritically claim it was wrong for that to happen, since there’s no right and wrong, might makes possible and there is only what works and what doesn’t.
So sick of their bs. Who breeds these fools?
We don’t.
Again, spending time in jail is obviously undesirable. I’m pretty sure this current system makes me feel more fear of consequence than what you guys are talking about.
And I do what I think is necessary. That doesn’t always mean fighting. I walk the walk everyday of my life.
I’ve never said might makes right. I’ve said might makes possible. There’s a difference.
Yes you do. Morals limit choice. Choice is key to freedom.
[8-)]
I don’t care about right and wrong. Someone steals my stuff, I’m calling the cops. They come and help me because that’s their job. Or I go get the stuff back myself. Another messy proposition.
So you have no emotional reaction to things like the Holocaust? I’d say you’ve evidenced to the contrary.
We can play moral relativsm v. moral absolutism another day. However please consider this Jacob.
Fine. This is itself a principle if followed consistently should lead you to the Anarchist side. If force is messy/inefficient (something you recognized before when you praised voluntary economies) and the State provision of defense/justice requres force then what is it? Messy/inefficient. Why is it messy/inefficent again? Because it’s an involuntary monopoly. So how can we relieve ourselves of this messiness and inefficiency? By allowing a free market in protection of private property from crime and war just as the free market is optimal in other ways. If you accept the above a priori you must be an anarchist.
Morals do not limit choice, they guide choice. I can still choose to kill someone, but a moral code keeps me from doing so. I’m still ‘free to choose.’