-
I’d be obliged to pay unless I could get out of it.
-
Ok, the military has made some mistakes. But they are also protecting us right now. So it’s worth it. I’m not trying to say the military is perfect. I’m saying it’s better than your alternative.
Yes, it does. Pay your water because we say so! Why? BECAUSE WE SAY SO!
No, that’d be an unsubstantiated assertion.
I gave you an example showing that a group of desert tribesmen with extremily outdated weapons was able to repel a great military superpower. Any society that does this will earn a reputation. (And in an anarchist society, it would be MUCH harder to even maintain a presence)
Also, we suffered the attacks on 911 due to the US government’s conduct in the Middle East, the Government demands it’s citizens sacrifice for it’s goals that have little to nothing to do with the defense of the homeland, and generally they have negitive results for the citizens. They are capable of doing this because citizens can’t opt out or escape the system. Voting rarely changes policy (just look at Obama) when it comes to war (vested interests).
A “limited government” will not occur because it HAS NEVER occured. A government either expands or collapses, there is no historical example of a static State. However there are plenty of examples of semi-anarchist societies, including the Icelandic Commonwealth, and Rural Pennsylvania. Also, many “non-statist” law systems including the Somali “Xeer” have survived for years with similar structure, while our system has changed absurdely over time.
- So extortion is cool with you as a rule? What would you have be illegal in your world?
2.And for all the money we give them they provide quality protection. Right? Just ask the people who died on 9/11. They know all about how superior a monopolist is at providing protection.
Well, coercive monopoly is supposed to be bad. But how are you going to distribute force? There needs to be ONE authority, one place people go to for decisions to be made about the use of force. ONE. In a free market, coercive monopolies are bad with assets and goods and services, but the market only operates the way it does because everyone knows that when they have a dispute, there’s something they can go to that will absolutely deliver a decision and enforce it. Your market will disappear without someone to protect it that can actually enforce its will.
Oh yes, the Final Decider™.
Why can there only be “ONE”? Why can’t disputes be solved by conflict and defensive, retailatory action?
Still no argument.
Then you advocate a world state, which is absurd. The idea that such an organization, of such size, could provide for it’s consumers is simply wrong, proven by any economic analysis.
Enforcement doesn’t necessitate the state, it merely necessitates someone with a gun, and a set of rules that determine when he get’s to point it at someone. Having one person in the room with a gun is a bad recipe, having several people in the room with a lot of different guns, and new ones of differing quality being shipped in daily and created is far safer socially.
-
I never said extortion shouldn’t be illegal. If the mafia tried to take my money from me, I’d go to the cops. In your world, I’d have no one to go to.
-
The terrorists did an effective job. 9/11 was a failing. But there are millions of people who are still alive because the terrorists can’t come over here and kill us all.
Because without an entity that can legitimately claim the ability to enforce its rulings, no one will honor the rulings of the courts. If I can just…go to another court and start all over when I get a ruling I don’t want, I’ll go to that one. But I can’t do that here. Now…justice can be slow in the making here…but it will be non existent in your world. Try it. Find out. I’m curious to see what happens, I really am.
Everything is cool with him, but presumably plenty of things would still be illegal. Acts which he has no problem with personally. He would rape someone, but he would also have rape be illegal in order to scare people into not raping each other. The real question is: if he has no moral qualms about any of these unfortunate acts, then why does he want to prevent people from doing them in the first place? Why have law if there’s no such thing as morality? Why would he arbitrarially pick some activities to make ‘illegal’ if every one of those activies is A-ok according to Mr. Bloom.
Also, I believe we have a budding statist here. Someone who has not rejected the notion that a world government is needed, you know, in order to have ONE decider. ONE final arbiter, whose decrees from up high will be enforced at bayonet point.
I absolutely do not advocate one world government. How did you manage to jump from wanting limited government here to wanting one world government??
he United States has the highest documented incarceration rate,[3][4] and total documented prison population in the world.[5][6] As of year-end 2007, a record 7.2 million people were behind bars, on probationor on parole. Of the total, 2.3 million were incarcerated.[7] More than 1 in 100 American adults were incarcerated at the start of 2008. The People’s Republic of China ranks second with 1.5 million, while having four times the population, thus having only about 18% per the US incarceration rate.[8][9]
add in death from regulation of medicine, death from government roads , death from government gun laws, and maybe the government isnt the best thing for keeping people ‘safe’
p.s. people in jail on drug charges and related shouldnt be…
Because you said that there needs to be ONE ultimate authority. Only a world government could be such an authority.
So you do not advocate ONE decider with the power to force its decisions on others then? I was under the impression that you thought this was nessecary for justice to occur? Don’t we need justice internationally, Jacob? Don’t we need a world government to enforce those decisions?
Sean Connery Voice
There can only be ONE!!!
Not good examples, in my opinion, because they are enforced by government. Check out the old Law Merchant. This was a long-lasting system with enforcement purely by reputation and trade sanctions, as I recall. I think it was very successful.
No reply from Jacob. I’m not sure what that means. [:)]
They’re not great examples, but they are examples of law working without one central authority. No world government enforces the decisions through force, but they more or less work. Not always, but the world is not in a constant state of violent chaos absent a world government. I wanted to apply that same logic to the us government.