This is nonsense. Morality doesn’t keep you from murdering people, fear does. Or incompetence. By incompetence I mean you don’t know how to kill. If you do, then it’s just a question of “is this worth the risk?” You are afraid of the logical consequences. Remove fear and you remove control from the system. Morals don’t scare me, guns do.
I don’t think you can fit me in a little box. But since philosophy tends to like to do that, I’ll say this: Your claim is hollow, it requires proof. Prove to me that I would feel more fear in a totally free society and I will concede this point to you.
I am not a total market anarchist. I think there should be rules enforced by an institution that embodies fear IN ALL THINGS. I’m not a total anything anarchist. I’ve said this before, I want limited government. I think it’s possible. I don’t think you have to throw out the baby with the bath water.
common law is not government law.
rather government has corrupted common law.
common law is evidence that a monopoly law producer/provider is not necessary.
my opinion is that minarchists have all the work to do in proving the ‘necessity’ of the ‘least evil’
because based on sound economics and political philosophy its hard to understand how minarchy
could hope to be comensurate with justice. i dont look around and find historical evidence of government protecting property and liberty, quite the opposite.
to some people its a no brainer that making the pyromaniac the local firechief is better than a market selection (meritocracy)
hey, suggestion to all those an-cap label haters, could we be vigourous meritocrats?
-
Morals are subjective rules that tell people what’s right and what’s wrong thus what should be done and what should not be done. Rules, of any kind, are limitations. Freedom is about having no limitations. Or as few limitations as possible.
-
LOL. Crime doesn’t exist if there’s no one to enforce the rules Juan. Isn’t there a single lawyer on this forum?? A judge??
And it is only risky because our society has deemed it as very wrong. I have heard that in parts of Africa it is fairly common-place (rape), and my guess is that people do not get punished for it much, as such it is not very risky.
However, there are different types of people as well. I myself would never rape someone, regardless of the risk. But of course “rape” is very subjective as well. When is “no” really “no”?
Why is the government the pyromaniac?? Because you say so?
Prove to me that your system of law will work better than mine and I will concede. I have no ego here, I don’t mind being wrong, I just don’t like admitting I’m wrong unless I really believe I am. All you guys have said so far is: “You’re wrong because this book says so!!! And we’ll kill you, you lousy statist!!! LOL” Show me you’re right, and I’ll admit you’re right.
Government is like a baby and bath water how exactly?
-
like all poor philosphers you freely confuse power with freedom.
-
moral crimes do exist regardless
You have to ask yourself “has society deemed rape wrong because it’s immoral or because it’s…antithetical to a functioning society?” To me, if everyone went around raping women all the time, we’d have a much different system than we do now.
I have come close to…overpowering a woman. But I stopped. Her suitemates probably would’ve heard, I was horribly afraid. And I’m with you, when a girl says no sometimes she means yes.
Impossible request. Also, this is shifting the burden of proof. The natural state of man is no government. So you have to prove that we need it, not the other way around.
I’m saying that the limited government is the baby, the big government is the bath water.
government is BY DEFINITION the theft of private propert. thats what TAXATION is
government is by definition a monopoly. thats what it is.
so if you think a system of anything: law or health, or food or tv’s is better when the providers are thieves and monopolists than entrepeneurs on a free market
you’re a moron.
(i said if)
If it’s impossible for you to prove what you’re saying then it fails the scientific method. Your claims are unfalsifiable, therefore I place them in the same bin with religion. And in common law, the burden of proof falls on the plaintiff. You’re the plaintiff.
Also, to make a statement like “the natural state of man is no government” is…funny to me because how can you say that something that man creates is unnatural to man??
Is a house unnatural to man? How about a train? Government is a tool like any other man has ever created, it is as natural to man as a…goddamn wheel.
the sufficient proof is that it works for markets for every other kind of service.
you agree with that.
somehow law is an exception.
now you are the plaintiff
You guys are not dissidents just because your property is being taken, you’re dissidents because you think it’s being taken to achieve ends you find undesirable. Why not just try to change the system so that the money goes to things you want? Then…it’s not really stealing. Right?
this is impossible, if they are taking it from me (TAX) then by definition i am not wanting to give it to them.
of course if they stop taking it from me without my permission we have no problem.
and we have no government.
like i said. no problem.
(looks like the lawyers have arrived and they are doing ok)
I’m not the plaintiff, I’m still the defendant. You are saying laws are better private, I’m saying they’re ok the way they are. You are accusing, I’m defending. Prove your accusation.
Society can still function if rape is legal. The problem is, why should rape be legal? A rapist may say, “so I can legally rape others”. And the retort would be, “but then you could be legally raped as well”. At which time the rapist would probably say, “oh, yeah, I don’t want that”.
I agree with you though that it is not about morality, but logic.
Taxation is just another way of paying for things. Admittedly, it’s not as voluntary as a market, but you get something back for your money. You just don’t like what you’re getting.