You guys are right

[Amanojack]

@whipitgood

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.

Your line of reasoning is totally valid. Actually, the fact that there are so few cases tried in international courts may be a testament to how stable anarchy (clarification for Jacob: countries are in a state of anarchy with respect to each other) is, and how much it encourages independent resolution of disputes.

[Amanojack]

@Jacob Bloom

And maybe the cops do try to extort me, but so would your private cops, so it’s all the same.

If the government cops try to extort from you, you have no real recourse except to try to sue them in a government court. If private cops try to extort you, they suffer a terrible reputation risk, and more importantly, you can go to other private cops to get efficient justice against them.

Government cops suffer minimal to no reputation risk, and you have no efficient recourse. Competition >> Monopoly. Always. In a free market for every possible service (including aggressive ones), your needs as a consumer equal dollar signs in the eyes of business owners. As Adam Smith noted, their self interest is what ensures you optimal service. The incentives for the government cops are much, much different.

It’s really not worth discussing this any more until you take 10 minutes out to read this: http://mises.org/web/2716 I don’t even care if you critique it, just be exposed to it and I think you’ll change your core position.

[Mlee]

It all goes back to the gun in the room.

[DD5]

@AJ

@Jacob Bloom

And maybe the cops do try to extort me, but so would your private cops, so it’s all the same.

If the government cops try to extort from you, you have no real recourse except to try to sue them in a government court. If private cops try to extort you, they suffer a terrible reputation risk, and more importantly, you can go to other private cops to get efficient justice against them.

Government cops suffer minimal to no reputation risk, and you have no efficient recourse. Competition >> Monopoly. Always. In a free market for every possible service (including aggressive ones), your needs as a consumer equal dollar signs in the eyes of business owners. As Adam Smith noted, their self interest is what ensures you optimal service. The incentives for the government cops are much, much different.

It’s really not worth discussing this any more until you take 10 minutes out to read this: http://mises.org/web/2716 I don’t even care if you critique it, just be exposed to it and I think you’ll change your core position.

I find that for people like Jacob, what is most lacking is a good understanding of free market theory. He wouldn’t be making any of these ridiculous claims if he understood how markets work. I’m not saying that he would then be %100 convinced, but at least he wouldn’t be making such typical false assertions about why the market for such services would fail.

[JackCuyler]

@Jacob Bloom

Your armies will not be as strong as theirs. You would drop your public army and spend all this time trying to build a private army and in the mean time, you’ll just get killed.

I don’t understand this sentiment at all. Private armies (today, in real life) are superior to public armies in every possible way except size. Sans a standing army, even the size ceases to be an issue. In the US, for example, do you honestly think Xe would still be as small as it is if the US military disbanded and there were no regulations or prohibitions on private owership of arms?

[Amanojack]

@DD5

I find that for people like Jacob, what is most lacking is a good understanding of free market theory. He wouldn’t be making any of these ridiculous claims if he understood how markets work.

I think you’re on to something. Maybe we all just assumed that since he is a minarchist of course he understands all about the free market. But he has some pretty unusual ideas, so it may be from those that he got to minarchy, without a full appreciation of the free market. I wish there were a good short article explaining how the market responds to any and every significant need that arises, as long as it is not systematically prevented by a monopolistic government power…ah, found something:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=91OIBnrjzLU (great speech by Tom Woods)
http://www.booktv.org/watch.aspx?ProgramId=PC-10285 (awesome speech by Tom Woods)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BRhtmcxDSIs (a libertarian gallop through American history by Tom Woods)

Jacob, watch any or all of these. Or just listen, as there is no visual presentation except Woods talking.

[JAlanKatz]

@Jacob Bloom

t’s not about right and wrong, it’s about who has the power to assert their position. It’s only your land because someone allows you to have it and is willing to protect you from people trying to take it. There’s a reason they say “possession is 9/10 of the law” and it’s because the law is designed to protect ownership. The legal system will use force, if necessary, to maintain your ownership. But if you don’t want that protection, you don’t deserve to have it and you should leave. Why do you think Welfare exists? Because the majority wants it. Right and wrong don’t matter. We have to convince nanny state people that welfare doesn’t actually do what it’s supposed to be doing, not that it’s morally wrong.

Then stop carrying on about majority rule and following the rules and people “thinking we’re special” because we don’t want to pay for programs you think are really cool. If your rule is that there is no rule, you don’t get to make references to principles like majority rule.

Do you think there is such a thing as theft? If I have a bag, is it possible for you to steal it? Seems obvious, but it seems to me that you denied the possibility above. If you have sufficient force to take the bag, and neither I nor anyone else physically stop you, it’s not my bag, right, but rather yours?

[Spideynw]

Jacob,

So would you be OK with people opting out of the system if they want to?

[Juan]

I REALLY love how the moral ‘subjectivists’ or whatever they call themselves AGREE with the far right religious conservatives (the Stratton-Budney type) and AGREE with the deranged militarist Bloom type. They are all just facets of the same ‘philosophy’…

[Juan]

@majevska

Actually, this is a good description of many forms of natural law libertarianism, only there is one code ruling over men rather one government over men: ONE law, ONE acceptable interpretation thereof, ONE philosophy, ONE guiding principle, no deviations.

Yeah majevska. Your remark is OH SO CLEVER. What a despicable & totalitarian philosophy the natural rights crowd hold. The idea that individuals are to be respected is so wicked.

We can have different laws. What, you don’t like to be cut up in pieces ? You don’t like to be blown up by Jacob’s army ?

Too bad, but who cares, it’s the X law. Well, just one of the laws. There’s also the Y law, which dictates that you’re under the jurisdiction of the X law. Of course there’s yet another law law proving that Y is ‘right’ - or at least ‘legal’…

'course there’s also the “might makes is” “might makes possible” natural law discovered by the Stratton-Bloom team.

[wilderness]

@majevska

@whipitgood

in order to have ONE decider. ONE final arbiter, whose decrees from up high will be enforced at bayonet point.

Actually, this is a good description of many forms of natural law libertarianism, only there is one code ruling over men rather one government over men: ONE law, ONE acceptable interpretation thereof, ONE philosophy, ONE guiding principle, no deviations.

I think such a centralization of law would suffer from the same shortcomings of a centralization of enforcement.

Yes majevska cause we know you like to steal as you told us and you teeter on murder for anybody ought to be able to do whatever they want according to you.

[wilderness]

@majevska

In effect that’s what many libertarians propose doing, it’s just that enforcement of libertarian natural law doesn’t require literally walking up to everyone on the street and demanding obedience to natural law. If, however, someone violates the natural law in any way they will be punished. Now I think natural law is pretty efficient, but you run into problems when people form the unrealistic expectation of their particular pet philosophy becoming universal. For example, HL Mencken’s proposal for the sterilization all violent criminals goes against natural law, and many libertarians would cry foul if a successful, prosperous society were set up with this law; whereas, I would only oppose such a law on consequentialist grounds if it proved itself a detriment. As Mlee mentioned, this is more or less Friedman’s approach; it’s much more flexible than the “one world law.”

It’s not more flexible when you agree with something. But I understand you want to steal, trash property, and teeter on murder (?)

[zefreak]

@Juan

I REALLY love how the moral ‘subjectivists’ or whatever they call themselves AGREE with the far right religious conservatives (the Stratton-Budney type) and AGREE with the deranged militarist Bloom type. They are all just facets of the same ‘philosophy’…

mmm.. guilt by association much?

[Juan]

LOL. I said nothing about guilt. I just noted the fact that you guys share the same philosophical positions. Make of it what you want.

[wilderness]

@Juan

LOL. I said nothing about guilt. I just noted the fact that you guys share the same philosophical positions. Make of it what you want.

Yes they do share Blooms philosophy.

[zefreak]

@Juan

I REALLY love how the moral ‘subjectivists’ or whatever they call themselves AGREE with the far right religious conservatives (the Stratton-Budney type) and AGREE with the deranged militarist Bloom type. They are all just facets of the same ‘philosophy’…

Moral subjectivism has nothing to do with religion, conservatism, or militarism. They may not be mutually exclusive, as moral subjectivism doesn’t necessitate a certain “brand” of morality; it is an epistemological or meta-ethical position.

[tacoface]

bloom’s not intelligent, the guy’s a fuckknuckle.

[Juan]

Moral subjectivism has nothing to do with religion, conservatism, or militarism. They may not be mutually exclusive, as moral subjectivism doesn’t necessitate a certain “brand” of morality; it is an epistemological or meta-ethical position.

Whatever you say zefreak. You’re the self appointed epistemological guru here. You can’t be wrong.

[Harry_Felker]

I am kinda happy that I am out of this conversation…

[wilderness]

@Juan

Moral subjectivism has nothing to do with religion, conservatism, or militarism. They may not be mutually exclusive, as moral subjectivism doesn’t necessitate a certain “brand” of morality; it is an epistemological or meta-ethical position.

Whatever you say zefreak. You’re the self appointed epistemological guru here. You can’t be wrong.

Which means he thinks he’s right. As you said: “irony is dead”. But of course he can’t say that too loud it might mean he’s not being subjective enough (subjective according to zefreak that is).

So his theory of knowledge does what in this world: I think his, zefreak’s, epistemology is like the blind leading the blind. All kinds of contradictions spew from his well.