Bitcoin Forum

To avoid throwing the new global warming thread off topic:


I'd first off say none of those practices took place in the context of a free market. As long as we have that out of the way:

Didn't the industrial revolution make slavery less economical before governments took action?

Europe I guess. I dunno, thats why I asked. I don't have time right now to research it beyond scanning wikipedia.

When there is law (and oh boy there is law) men are not free to act to solve their problems. Freedom is no guarantee, but in the current situation would be free actors are stopped at every turn.

Its important not to link markets and morality. Morality changes and markets change to suit it.  Just as we look in horror at slavery and racism today, its a fair bet that future generations will look back in disgust at mass abortion and at factory farming.  Markets operate within the moral frameworks of their societies - if those changes come to pass, the market in abortion services and in factory farmed pork will go away.

Your would-be-actors are still free to act. They are just oppressed at every turn when they have to consider the consequences of their every act, due to all of the "lawful" minutiae. Maybe we should differentiate between capable and free. I know what capable is. That's just science and physical fact. The real question is, what does it mean to be and act freely?

There is only one logical answer to this.

Which is what?

For to be free is not merely to cast off one's chains, but to live in a way that respects and enhances the freedom of others.
Nelson Mandela

Free: Not under the control or in the power of another; able to act or be done as one wishes.

That is, to take responsibilities for one's own action.

And in doing so, face the repercussions of those who you are willing to harm.

So is an American citizen living in Boston in his own house a free man?

Just about nobody is really free. There's always someone who has some power over you. Even if it's just your wife.

Maybe in 200 years from now, people will be vegetarian and will argue the free market didn't/couldn't liberate animals back then.

I can see that happening.  1000 years ago, slavery was normal and abortion was regarded as horrendous.  Nowadays, abortion is normal and slavery is regarded as horrendous.  Who knows how people will look back at us?

So the murderer of a homeless man will face the repercussions of the homeless man?

The polluter will face the repercussions of those who don't know they were polluted?

The thief will face the repercussions of the victim even though the victim can't afford to pay someone to find who the thief was?

 

In all of those cases, the perpetrator is forced to act inconspicuously should they wish to remain in their state of lesser consequences, and their freedom is thus affected. The fear of being harmed is enough to persuade the fellows of those being harmed, that they must act to disarm the harmer would they be found out. The harmer has overwhelming incentive to hide, and the non-harmers have overwhelming incentive to remove the harmer (or themselves - flee) from their environment. If they didn't care about being punished (having a god complex), they may very well be punished by underestimating opposition, or be forced to defend themselves by destroying anyone that has cause to harm them (rebel), or to be isolated by the flight or extinction of prey.

One solution might be to kill all humans except yourself, then you'll mostly be free...but still subject to the whims of nature anyway.

The point of all this? None of us are free, and the modern world is the result of this duality between liberty and protection.


No, save for the illusion of it. There is no available claim on this planet without contest, so the Boston man is shackled to a society (where can he go and stake an uncontested claim without an army?). His house is only his by law, the tenet of which is to refuse the freedoms of everyone else over that land. The system that gives him freedom over his own property is the same system that denies him freedom on every other. So, it is an illusion.

Ah yet another "omg I am really a slave" poster.

If modern people in democratic states are not free, who is our master?

Rather than offer any counter argument to show them invalid, or any substance of your own, you try to belittle me?

If you ask "Who are our masters", the answer becomes more obvious.

Depending on how loosely you define the term "slave", most men throughout history have been slaves: to a tribe, to a king, or to a state.  If you wish, you could define slavery in such a way so that the population of Western societies are considered "slaves".  Whether this is a useful term to apply to the members of Western society depends on your specific value scale.  Certainly, if they are slaves, they are the most pampered and prosperous slaves in the history of the species.  Given a choice, it seems feasible to me that most people would choose to be a middle class "slave" in the United States than a "free-man" living in the Scottish highlands.  However, those who love rustic living, kilts and the ability to distill and sell alcohol would likely choose the "free" Scottish life-style over the pampered, yet enslaved, existence of iPhones, XBoxes and internet.

You are absolutely correct.

The civil war was not about ending slavery. It was to supposedly "Save The Union". Abolition was a by product.

Lincoln wrote to Joshua Speed in 1855:

Lincoln wrote a letter in response to an editorial by Horace Greeley of the New York Tribune which had urged complete abolition:

Lincoln wrote to James C. Conkling on August 26, 1863:

Lincoln stated in a October 16, 1854 speech that:

In analyzing Lincoln's position, historian Eugene H. Berwanger notes:

No it doesn't.

Really, if you are not free, someone or some group is oppressing you.  For example, in China, I can see its the Communists and in Bahrain, I can see its the Sunnis.  

In the US, who is oppressing you?

The entity which has monopoly on money printing not accountable to elected govt.

Nonsense.  The Fed is a government creation and would be abolished tomorrow if Ron Paul had the votes. 

Do try to come up with something that really affects your freedom.  Pointing to government employees that can be removed if the elected representatives so choose is a bit feeble.

I'm pretty sure it isn't so easy. The FED and associated banks have tools with which to threaten politicians.

Paying taxes is not oppression in a democracy.

This oppression: http://english.alarabiya.net/articles/2012/02/04/192423.html 400 people killed because they are not the right religion to have a decent life in Syria.  Paying taxes to provide the services your community uses does not compare.

http://english.alarabiya.net/articles/2012/02/04/192423.html

That's oppression.  Stop being a baby.

If you live in a country where the taxes you pay are set by a democratically elected body, then you are being silly to call taxation oppression.  The scale is not the issue - its the emotional immaturity that is the problem.

In Syria, the Alevi government is determined to maintain power against a Sunni Muslim majority because they believe they are a superior race that came from the stars.  In your country, there is no such group oppressing you. 

You do not need to be oppressed to have a master. Oppression only happens when you behave 'badly' according to those with more firepower than you - not all slaves were beaten to made work. That is, you aim to rebel or harm anyone with the ability to harm you back. In America, everyone has the right to own guns, so oppression is more difficult than say, China.

In a democratic state, our masters are each other. My original point stands.

All it takes to be enslaved is to be unvoluntarily obligated.

And birth as a human pretty much takes care of that, right?

Your original point is that a man in Boston is under an illusion if he thinks he is free.  Now you say he is not free because he and his neighbours are oppressing one another.  I suppose they do horrible things like weekly bin collections and employing dog catchers?

Do you not see that you are defining freedom in a way that is unique to you?  The citizen in Boston who votes for his representatives, has his rights respected and benefits from a vibrant civic society is the very definition of a free man.

right

What? He is not free, but believes he is free. This is not a contradiction. We once believed an atom was indivisible, but that proved untrue, and both ideas are still irrelevant to most people. Belief has nothing to do with reality, and we can function perfectly well with this being the case.

He gives up freedom when he respects the laws which govern him and his neighbor. Oppression is a specific definition of unjust burden, and not the only result of removing freedom - modern democracies are also a form of removing freedom; all the goodness with just a hint of oppression. I would even say that the only difference between a democracy and a dictatorship is that in a democracy, the oppression is more equally shared between those in power and those not.


Are you doing differently? Just using a google definition: Freedom is the power or right to act, speak, or think as one wants without hindrance or restraint. "Playing nice" includes sometimes restraining oneself.

Having his rights respected implies others will restrain themselves when they want to exercise their 'freedom'. This creates a paradox for freedom, as the prerequisite of restraint removes their power to act in the first place. This is why I say there cannot exist a freedom without restraint, but we must believe it to exist to get on with things. Hence the illusion. If you have the right to act in a violent manner towards your neighbor, can you still do so without hindrance in any democracy? Even a boxing match has rules.

Many in this thread cling to the immature and naive belief that freedom as they see it is a natural consequence of nature if governmental bodies don't exist. Sorry to burst your fantasy, but freedom as you see it does not naturally arise in the absence of government.

Sure it does, so long as you have the force capable of stopping any infringement from occurring, using an eye for an eye justice system that had worked so well for thousands of years. People would learn very quickly the perils of infringing on another, so they would move to weaker targets or change their ways. I think expecting the government to take on all responsibility iny our life to be the more immature choice... but in reality we dont have much of a choice until millions stand in unison against the current system, but they need to wake up first. I would have no qualms with shooting a criminal bent on depriving me or my loved ones of their rights, nor metering out eye for an eye discipline/punishment.

Jim says, "hey bill, how'd you lose your finger?"

Bill replies, "I stole from a guy and he cut it off after he shot me."

Bill was talking to Jim while they were working. Bill realised its safer to get a job instead of stealing.

Don't you see the fallacies of your fantasies? Let's review:


What if you don't have the force capable of stopping said infringement? You're assuming everyone has that power and strength.

Citing barbaric traditions of the past is hardly the model of freedom you're looking for.


I guess the weaker targets aren't deserving of freedom then.

Seriously, go rethink your ideas for a few years and come back when you're eighteen.

At least in my solution there is a realistic expectation of protecting oneself instead of relying on the police who only react to crime, not prevent it... and the criminal will actually learn from their crimes and not be constantly traveling through a revolving door because an eye for an eye is way worse than 3 hots and a cot in prison.

In fact, according to Warren v. District of Columbia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warren_v._District_of_Columbia), the supreme court held and affirmed that the police have absolutely no obligation to protect a citizen unless under special circumstances, like being detained or while in custody.

You think and eye for an eye is barbaric? I agree. Almost as barbaric as the criminal infringing upon me or my family.

Not to be unfeeling, but weak people who refuse to prepare and protect their families deserve whatever they get. All they have to do is educate themselves, buy weapons, learn how to use them safely, and practice. Confidance will come with experience and repitition. Physical defense classes may also as well as build confidance. Also they should build community support structures for assistance.

The thing many do not realize is that it does not matter what the law says or how the police react. There is so much crime today specifically because of the high chance they wont be caught and disciplined. They know most homes and families are not prepared to be infringed upon. They know most soley rely on the cops who only react. They know the government is trying to take the guns. They know hunting is decreasing becasue of the over harvesting of antlerless deer herds, which frustrates hunters, meaning less hunting and less guns.

In the end the only rights you have will be taken away if you lack the ability to defend those rights from infringement. Criminals could care less about laws when they want what you got and no oneor nothing is around to stop them.

A criminal could come over to your house right now and do what they want regardless of the law and the police, and there would be nothing you could do about it if their force was greater than yours. If your force was greater than their and they knew there was a high likelihood you would kill or maim them, they would avoid you like the plague.

Most simply do not understand the mind of a criminal.

You are completely sidestepping the following points:

1. What if you don't have the force capable of stopping said infringement?

2. I guess the weaker targets aren't deserving of freedom then.

1. Then you wouldnt be any worse off than you are right now.

2. Of course they are deserving of freedom, but freedom requires participation and some action on your part.

Explain.


Ah. So those who can afford more action on their part get greater freedom? That's not freedom. Looks like you've got a lot of thinking to do before you figure this out.

Not everyone wants to waste their time on weapons training.  People want the state to protect them and vote in politicians who try to provide that protection. 

Not just waste their time, but also require them to spend money. It's an extraordinary case of favoring those who have an intense interest in that subject matter, favoring those who are wealthy, and favoring those who are healthy and strong. That is not freedom for the members of society as a whole. It's such a tiresome and fallacious argument that utterly fails to acknowledge that it is the antithesis of freedom in general.

Being forced to covet guns, train with guns and knives, to pay for weapons, to pay for excessive security is simply another form of coercion. It favors the rich, the gun nut, and the strong and healthy.

Worst of all, there is no guarantee that those who covet guns, train with guns, and have the money to buy weapons are not individuals who wish to prey upon others.

FirstAscent is right.  This is just a case of some guy wanting his hobby made compulsory.

So, can we also agree that I'm not obligated to purchase guns, knives, weapons or other related security for you? It would appear that that type of coercion and covetousness is equally as inappropriate. I'm pretty sure no one was physically created equal to anybody else, but that's no excuse to plunder another's property so that they can be equal in any of their things (including security and weapons). Charities still work. Free association still works.

It seems that you are making an equally tiresome and fallacious argument (society has the right to force people to coalesce, thus majority rules). The simple fact is freedom is the ability to act upon oneself and one's things sans coercion and violence, and allow the equal supremacy of others to do the same. That's the simple truth. Keep spinning your wheels, you'll get there eventually.

Absolutely. Just like you're not obligated to purchase stuff for your apartment neighbor. But you both have to pay rent, in part to make sure the roof over your head doesn't leak.

Fred - the mistake you continue to make is that you define your own idea of freedom that excludes all the free people in the world. 

That's changing the subject.  I know its a lovely rhetorical snap back but why not stay on topic?

EDIT: Holliday was replying to an earlier post by me so my own rhetorical snap back, well, snapped back.  My mistake...

You pay rent to the apartment owner because he owns the apartment; it's a transaction.  Quid pro quo.  You pay him a monthly sum of money in exchange for the privilege of living on his property.

To extrapolate where I think you are going: we pay rent to the State because the State owns the entire geographic area under its jurisdiction.  Is that correct?

The topic is "Free markets and social problems".  The discussion has already deviated a little from that as discussions tend to do, so why do you unilaterally get to decide what is "on topic" and what isn't?  You don't.  It's a valid point given the parameters of the previous posts.

Its not connected to forcing people to take up martial arts and firearms training - which is what he was replying to.

The points you guys are not getting are:

• The police do not prevent crime, so the population can not rely on them. They only react to crime.
• The police have no legal responsibility to protect you.
• A population sufficiently able to defend themselves reduces crime.
• A population sufficiently able to defend themselves makes communities safer.
• There should be much stiffer penalties for crimes that cause loss,  injury, or death. Preferrably an eye for an eye.
• Penalizing criminals on their own level (an eye for an eye) would decrease crime.

I have no interest in being humane when the people trying to steal from, harm, or kill me and my family are considerably less than humane. Its pure barbarism what they do and they deserve no less in return, but again, the state needs that crime. Thats why criminals are treated so well.

I do not consider protection and preparedness a hobby, but rather a way of life. Much like preparing for disaster, catastrophy, emergencies, hard economic times, outdoor survival, food storage and prep, weaponry, ammunition, medical, and  skillsets for long term off the grid survival like farming, multiple ways to obtain potable and gray water, livestock raising, turning said into usable products, and general ways to lessen the expenses of everyday life (heating, electricity, communications, etc) . Self-sufficiency, self-reliance, and true sustainability has been educated out of todays kids for the most part, but this country was founded on those skills and principles. We need to return to them.

Thankfully my state passed the Castle Doctrine, which allows much broader home defense without the criminal and civil liabilities involved. Even without that, I would much rather be judged by 12 than have me or one of my family carried by 6 to the grave.

Criminals needs to realize there are more and more like me out here everyday that will take care of business when infringed upon.

Oh and when your entitlements party comes to an end and you no longer get those benefits stolen from responsible taxpayers like me,  and you have no ability or skills to fend for yourselves, people like you guys will be the first ones to revolt, blame people like me for preparing because we have and you have not, and some may even  come after us who has paid your dues for so long... and we are ready, willing, able, and waiting for you.

Things are going to get much worse financially. People refusing to prepare now will be homeless, cold, and hungry. Homeless, cold, and hungry people trying to survive wont care about police, prisons, or laws.

And if a collapse occurs that goes beyond the financial and the grocery store shelves become bare, where do you think the criminals will go. Right to our farms and homes. That will be their grocery store. I really dont think this will happen, a total collapse of society, but I am preparing for it.

You're saying people choose to vote in politicians instead of undergoing weapons training themselves.  He's saying that that may be an ineffective method to accomplish the goal of self-protection.  How is that off topic?

You don't get anything from the state in return from taxes.  An old lady with an aversion to water who lives in the mountains still have to fund the coastal defences through her tax bill.

Its a fundamental mistake to think that tax payments are a transaction.  They are an imposition.  In a democracy it can be argued that they are a legitimate imposition but it can never be argued that they are a voluntary transaction.

Please share with us the tax rates and governmental programs of said communities.

We are not supposed to have a democracy. No where in our founding documents does that word even exist, and just so you know, "democracy is indispensable to socialism". I think Lenin said it.

Democracy is 2 wolves and a sheep voting on whats for dinner.

Democracy is mob rules.. meaning you have no rights other than what other people give you by a vote, and can take any of them away by a vote, so if tomorrow its voted upon to kill you, you're dead.

Thats why we're supposed to have a constitutional republic (in America). Not that I think its anything special. It isnt. It was designed to let the rich get richer off the backs of the working class, and keep the poor working class slaves, poor working class slaves, while letting us think we have rights they cant take away..

"Government of the people, by the people and for the people." - some dead guy said that was the idea of the American system and I think its a good approximation of the ideal democracy.  Its not just the USA; pretty well the whole English speaking world is democratic and all of central and western Europe.  Contrary to your "2 wolves and a sheep" analogy, democracies are noted for human rights and for fairness. 

When dealing with their own people. 

Roads don't build themselves.
Health care comes from medical professionals.
Law enforcement requires an intervener.
Schools require teachers.
Guns require weapons manufacturers.

None of the above requires a state to exist. All of them require the cooperation of a group of individuals. All of it could be voluntary. We had slavery. It didn't work and it never will. You will fail in that endeavor like those who came before you.

You aren't superordinate (God-like). Society isn't superordinate. Stop pretending to think you or your collective are any different than the rest of us. Just because you have superior collective manpower, does not mean that the ends will always justify the means.

Voluntary is nice, involuntary isn't. Have a little respect for human life. Stop the violence.

The very idea of a state is that it is not voluntary.  Concepts like property and cash are social creations.  If you have someone saying "I don't voluntarily accept your idea of property" are the rest of society supposed to unlock their doors and let the guy take what he pleases ?  Of course not - the state imposes property laws and punishes people who don't obey them.

If anarchy, then you can't have formal, central property laws.

But this may work out for a libertarian society anyway.

The more property you have, the more expensive will it be to protect it. In a primitive society, you'd have to have hire soldiers to do so. Once human kind has learnt to be more civilized, there'd be insurances. The more property, the higher the rates. So this might even be a self-regulating process that helps against the rich becoming too rich. Thieves do finally serve a good purpose after all.  :D

Dictatorships treat other nations better than their own people?

Property derives from the word proprius, which means one's own. It cannot be simultaneously yours and mine and "theirs" if a person(s) is attempting to expropriate your property. Whether this be via direct theft, indirect "official proclamation", majority rule (vote), or some other such edict, matters little (it's semantics at this point).

I'm not contending with your definition of State. It is accurate, but the fact that it is involuntary means you are forcing your views and the opinions of the majority (or elected elite) upon the minority. That's not freedom, it's slavery. Not the blacks vs. the whites kind of slavery, but insidious and effective nevertheless.

The only definition that makes any sense, and simultaneously puts everybody on the same footing is one where your property and person is not trespassed or aggressed under any circumstances, and likewise the same must be done for everyone else. Any other variation would be a violation of the very definition of what is property.

If your going to have a subjective standard (is vs. ought), at least try to make logical sense of it, otherwise you look foolish and ignorant.

I'm not sure how you got that from what I said and the text I bolded.  Democracies have historically treated their people fairly well when compared to dictatorships and feudal monarchies.  However, there are many examples of democratic countries visiting great harm upon the peoples of other nations.  The United States and Vietnam, for one example.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Private_property

Private property is a legal construct and its not voluntary.  You don't have the option to disagree with my owning a house, cash, shares, copyrights and a dog.  But, you can ask to have the law changed so that you have access to my house for example.  Good luck with that.

That's the point.  The whole idea of property is that an authority says no-one can take it from you unlawfully.  Fred has this idea that it can all be voluntary.  That would mean that if one person disagrees with the idea that I own my house, its violence and slavery to deny her access to it.  I've had that problem and having the ability to call the police was very useful.

it boils down to force.

someone with more force than you, will always [be able to] take whatever you have, and most likely will attempt to justify it in whatever way that they can to make themselves or 3rd parties feel better about it, agree to it, or not quiestion it [see: justifications, propaganda, ideological indoctrination, psychological manipulation, education, etc]

we have no rights or property if we can not protect it with force.

this has been the problem since the dawn of Man to this very day.

there is someone who always wants more of what you got, then takes it by force or threat of force.

I don't need, nor does anybody else need, an authority to tell them that a thing should, or should not, be expropriated unlawfully. If little kids can figure that one out on their own, so can I. I'm sure we can adjust without the state just fine. Producing definitions from the state doesn't make them lawful and unlawful per se, it just means they have the convenience of force majeure. If I want to defend myself against intruders, I can do so. If I want to hire an agent to assist me for that purpose, I can do that too. And last but not least, if I want to join a collective and spread the cost of protections amongst the members of said association, that can be done also.

I don't need a state to legitimize this process. Everything that was voluntary before the birth of the state can be voluntary after that fact. There is nothing special about the function of a state. I might as well call myself a state or a sovereign nation of one. The logic is equally as valid. Numbers change nothing. The force is just multiplied in the collective. The application is equivalent. You have created nothing new here. Stop making it appear as if you have created anything original. You have merely organized a group of individuals and given them various titles of nobility. Why should I care, unless all you're interested in doing is attempting to induce fear, loathing and threats. If you're not doing that then I will just ignore you otherwise, I will oppose you.

To wit, and to answer your question, yes; it can all be accomplished voluntarily. The only time it becomes involuntary is when you or your things have been aggressed or trespassed. At that point the aggressor gets a taste of his own medicine.

You are avoiding the point.  There is nothing to expropriate without the state because private property and cash are state creations. Of course once the state has created property rights, then you are within your right to defend yourself against unlawful intrusion.  But don't kid yourself that property rights are voluntary - they are based on force. 

Would you 'force' your child to eat good food instead of candy? Would you 'force' your child to stay off the busy street?

I'm not avoiding anything. The state is people (state == people). People are comprised of individuals (people == many individuals). I'm and individual (1 person). I don't need you to tell me what property is. And even if I did learn from your precious little "state" thugs, I still don't need them to assist me in maintaining it. I can do that just fine for myself.

And to be perfectly accurate, property rights are based on the potential use and individual right of self defense, which derives from force. If nobody stole or trespassed, there would be no use of force. Your conflating the use of voluntary and property rights. My argument is one where the right of the individual to privately contract for his security is his business, if he sees fit to do so. He may do that in any number of ways, but stealing the resources of his neighbors to achieve this (we call this theft or plunder, in case you were wondering) WOULD BE A NO-NO.

Wake up Hawker. Your logic stinks to high heaven. Go peruse Wikipedia and get aquainted with fallacy, logic, aggression, force and other most abundantly obvious topics. It's philosophy 101 stuff. I can explain it to an 8th grader and they can understand just fine. You've been indoctrinated and brainwashed. Wake up and smell the freedom.

You keep saying that, in one form or another. Sadly, believing it and saying it does not demonstrate the truth and accuracy of it. And even if it was true, which I sincerely doubt, you fail to address whether everyone else can also do it, and what the consequences are for those who can't.

What you have is an unproven fantasy, and as long as you safely live in a world where you are not called upon to demonstrate the actuality of it, you feel that your fantasy has merit.

Fred you still avoid the point.  Private property is a legal creation.  It requires a state.  No state means no property.

The way states make private property is that its not voluntary.  You cannot disagree about me owning my house if the law says I own it.  There is no "I an opting out" system whereby you can take someone else's house.  If you call this violence and oppression, fine you are being violently oppressed from taking others' lawful property.  Tough!

Oh really? Wow! Real freedom is that bad huh? So, shall I bow down to my benevolent overlords now and kiss their feet, since I'm nothing more than "clay in the potter's hands" of the intelligentsia; ready to be molded to whatever suits their fancy? Nothing is free, including freedom. Freedom to associate (solidarity) is what I'm looking for, not forced association or collectivism. Sadly you're also suggesting that nobody can get along without the state. No doubt a fantasy of your own it seems.

The fact I have any freedom at all, has much to do with my founding fathers who mostly got it right. Had you lived back in the day and graced the presence of so many impressive "statesmen" would you have told them the same drivel? That it's all a fantasy and we should all just go back to our miserable lives and pay homage to the English? Those who cannot learn from history are doomed to repeat it. Sound familiar?

"I would rather be exposed to the inconvenience attending too much Liberty than those attending too small degree of it." -- Thomas Jefferson

"The tree of Liberty must be refreshed from time to time, with the blood of Patriots and Tyrants." --Thomas Jefferson

"It is seldom that any Liberty is lost all at once." --David Hugh

"The argument for Liberty is not an argument against organization, which is one of the most powerful tools human reasoning can employ, but an argument against all exclusive, privilege, monopolistic organization, against the use of coercion to prevent others from doing better." --F.A. Hayek

"Without Liberty, Law loses its nature and its name, and becomes oppression. Without Law, Liberty also loses its nature and its name, and becomes licentiousness." --James Wilson

"A frequent reference to fundamental principles is absolutely necessary to preserve the blessings of Liberty, and keep a Government free." --Benjamin Franklin

"We will never be through with our fight for Liberty, because their will always be people who do not want the responsibility of freedom, and there will always be people who will gladly take that responsibility away from them, for the power it brings." --N. Scott Mills

"I know not what course others may take, but as for me, give me Liberty or give me death."  --Patrick Henry

You quoted me, but didn't address what I said. Try again.

That's BS, and you know it. Private property is a philosophical 'is-ought' construct and merely needs one or more persons to defend it -should it become necessary. The state means nothing in that context. So the actual and real physical outcome would be this, "no defense, possible property loss", no state needed.

Thru private contract, everyone can achieve the effect of property status. You don't need a violent involuntary state construct for that goal. There is nothing intrinsically different between the state and a gang of highwaymen or mafioso. One merely has the scent of lawfulness at his disposal, while the other hides in the dark.

You almost make it sound like your omnipresent, omniscient, almighty state is some incorporeal demi-god. Enjoy the groveling you liege.

Fred, you can "is-ought" all you want but you don't have the right to take other people's property.  The reason for this is simple; the state protects their legal ownership and it does not protect your "is-ought" baloney. 

So I need to prove that private contract, solidarity, voluntary association, and personal freedom needs to be proven just so I can acquire my independence?

Wherein does that make sense? The mere fact I can elucidate it means I should automatically gain personal sovereignty and autonomy; and should you deny me that, you become just like the idolatrous elitist felons you worship so much.

Your state is just as much an 'is-ought' construct as my voluntary consensual contractual society is. Yours may be the way it is right now, but that doesn't justfy it's existence. Logic demonstrates that any individual should have no more or less freedom and privilege than any other individual or group of individuals. What's so hard to understand about that?

Or was I born a slave and now I must purchase my freedom back? What say you massah? Next time, phrase you questions more accurately.

What on earth are you talking about!!!??? I have never, not once, not so much as breathed, or intimated that I would ever take other people's property or would justify theft. The state primarily protects itself. The citizenry is a secondary concern.

Are you high on something? Can you read? Is English not your first language? Your comprehension level is atrocious.

Your say that recognition of property rights is voluntary and doesn't need a state.  I am pointing out that property rights are created by states - they don't exist without a legal enforcement system.  When I say this you start your "slavery theft oppression" schtick.

Do you accept that enforceable property rights are a legal creation?  Yes or No?

There is nothing hard to understand about that. However, the burden falls upon you to persuasively argue and demonstrate that your way of doing things would actually work. It frankly sounds flimsy, and your philosophical ramblings on the subject only seem to touch on your insistence that it should be that way, without ever actually making it sound like it would believably work.

Furthermore, every time you mention the word slavery or something similar, you deserve to be not listened to. Hyperbole makes your case weaker, not stronger.

I accept that property rights are a "legal construction" insofar as one person recognizes that the property not in his possession, or within his control, is not his/theirs, and should not be infringed; and should he/they infringe, restitution may be the consequence.

The word legal has been abused and misconstrued so much, it has practically lost it's meaning. I prefer the words and/or phrases 'force' (physics domain), 'mutual consent', and 'private contract'. It makes you think a little harder about the legislative consequences of your actions.

How one goes about enforcing that is an entirely different matter altogether. A 'state' may accomplish this to some extent, but so can anybody else smart enough to provide the same service. You're arguing possible vs. impossible, instead of should vs. could.

Hawker, I believe you are conflating law with the State. Law can and has existed without the State. You do need law in order to have property rights. You are correct in saying that, but I don't think you are correct to assume that without a State there can be no law. Whether law under a State is more just, or efficient or desirable is a different argument.

I'm not arguing - I'm pointing to facts.  Property rights are created by the state.  I don't know if you have ever been divorced, but should you suffer that misfortune you come to see very clearly that saying "I own this" means nothing at all unless you can say "I legally own this."  Even then, your ex gets to take a share of it off you.  

In the real world, many people do not "mutually consent" to having their houses taken off them and given to an ex-spouse.  Its not voluntary.  You don't get to "opt out" and and find someone else to make a different decision.  Property rights are legal rights created by the state and to have property you have to to have a state to enforce the rights that come with it.

I may have a somewhat flimsy way of expressing what I think is freedom (it's much simpler than everything else I've seen or read) and how it could be a achieved, but I'm absolutely appalled and disgusted at the way government currently functions.

And besides, since when should I be burdened with demonstrating to some political authoritarian that I deserve my freedom? He certainly doesn't afford me the same (quid pro quo). It's a two-way street, otherwise you're merely overpowering me (force majeure) because you can, not because you should. Where's the logic in that?

I'll make you a deal. You stop using the words 'state' and 'government' and I'll stop using the words 'slave' and 'master'. Fair enough?

I know someone who went to jail rather than give up her house as part of a bitter divorce.  The courts said it was not her house and when she refused to leave, she was arrested.  That is how property rights work - if you don't accept them you go to jail.  That requires a state.

Can courts only exist with a state? Why or why not?

A court enforces the law.  It uses a police force to enforce the law. A lot of disputes are over trivial matters, like petty theft, so the courts cannot depend on fees to support the judges, admin, police and prisons.  Historically, courts and jails have been funded by taxation to get around this.  Taxation really requires a state if you are going to have taxes get democratic approval.

I'm not asking you to be burdened with demonstrating that you deserve freedom. I'm asking you to demonstrate how your solution will actually result in freedom.


That's fine, as I don't really use the word state or government much - certainly I use those terms much less than you do.

You are arguing, and you are not using facts. Laws are not facts. The actions that result from the execution of said laws are facts (observables). Laws are 'is-ought' constructs. To put it another way, laws are reified extrinsic objects (abstract concepts). If you need a dictionary, I'll wait.

I merely point out the illogicality of the interpretation of laws the state attempts to impose upon their subjects (personal freedom is remotely considered). Most of it is senseless drivel. You gave a perfect example of the aforementioned drivel. Thanks for driving the point home.

What philosophical bullshit in this thread.

Government creates whatever laws they want, constitutional or unconstitutional, right or wrong, then they are enforced, then if it goes to the supreme court, the highest court in the land and the supposed last bastion of protection for the people, they hand down unconstitiontal opinion, and state their opinions are unconstitutional, when they are sworn to protect the people and protect the constitution.

Case in point ... police checkpoints and DUI stops. In their opinion the supreme court ruled, with dissenting opinion, that the overall collective good the checkpoints and dui stops do over-rides their minor constituional infringements.

Another prime example of government thinking the constitution is a worthless god damn piece of paper is the president ordering the assassination murder of american citizens without any due process, like some Star Chamber group of people in a back room somewhere doing what they want to whoever they want, when they want, however they want to do it just because they; can, are above the law, and they want to do it.

Hello? Is there anyone home ?

It boils down to force and it will come down to force and a war to get any freedom.

Pick a side.

Is that a "no, courts cannot exist without state"?

And if I don't demonstrate an actual "suitable" solution (whatever that may be)? What then? I still have to remain under your "democratic" iron-fisted rule? If we're going to pretend to be gentlemen here, let's try to be a little more subtle with the authoritarian overtones. It's the least you could do. Fool me once, shame on me...

If you don't use the <bleep> words directly, you certainly imply their utility. I can use substitutes all the day long too. It's called semantics. It's all the same to me. It seems you prefer an involuntary ruling organization, to one that requires consensual agreement. See how I did that? Sneaky huh? Let's stop playing games and get down to the brass tacks for once.

Actually Fred, thats a new line for you.  What do you care if the interpretation of law is illogical when you don't acknowledge the lawgiver is legitimate in the first place?

Property rights are legal rights created by the state and to have property you have to to have a state to enforce the rights that come with it.  If you have a better system with examples of where it works, great. Right now you are just being boring.

A system of independent courts, police and prisons cannot exist without a state.  I understand some Islamic tribes have a "court of elders" type system but that isn't really a court with a legal system as we know it.

I do care about the interpretation of law and any of its attendant logical outcomes. I'll accept any ruling, from any lawgiver, in any place, and at any time should he/she/they properly apply the non-aggression principle. Every time.

How you like them apples?

Your statist rant is going nowhere. Repeating it oft, doesn't give it legitimacy any more than a hoard of invading mercenaries plundering the same town every day for a year is justifiable. Might makes right is so last millennia. Try to pretend to be a little more enlightened instead of an authoritarian whore puppet.

Still stuck aren't you? No state means no legal system so there would be no law to obey.  Your non-aggression principle is only an aspiration - if you have a real life family dispute with real people who refuse to compromise, it takes force to settle it.  Complaining that force isn't legitimate doesn't get around the fact that there are people who can only be dealt with by force.

He never explains what force forces one to comply with NAP.

He can't.  In every legal action where you take what someone considers their property, you need the backing of force to do it peacefully. 

When did either of you last read the NAP?

For reference lest you forgot, or are complete bozos.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-aggression_principle (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-aggression_principle)

In dispute resolution, sometimes it requires force to resolve an issue. Ultimately, having to use force is never peaceful, just necessary betimes. Duh.

Never said you couldn't use it, just when. The when, why, how much, and applied to whom, should be at the root of the issue. Don't act so ignorant, it's unbecoming. We should all aspire to the NAP including you and your precious authoritarian elitists. The world would be a better place.

Another quote to stoke the fire:

"The harm done by ordinary criminals, gangsters, and thieves is negligible in comparison with the agony inflicted upon human beings by the professional "do-gooders", who attempt to set themselves up as gods on earth and who would ruthlessly force their views on all others - with the abiding assurance that that the ends justify the means." -- Henry Grady Weaver.

*sigh*

It's not what the NAP says that is at issue. It's that it doesn't address the ramifications of what happens when those who don't abide by the NAP have more force, resources or money than you. It doesn't provide a solution when a greater majority does not consistently abide by the NAP.

The NAP also doesn't provide for the situation where both sides sincerely believe they are in the right and where an independent agency that neither side is able to select or to ignore is needed. 

The sensible way to look at this is in terms of theory of evolution.  There are many successfully evolved states that use a legal system based on democracy with the 3 arms of government separated.

There is none that uses the NAP as the basis of law.

That tells us that the NAP is not something that works in the real world.  Nice idea but it doesn't work.

You're stating the obvious. There is no doubt that a more powerful group, should they wish to apply violence, would likely get the upper hand. This is how it has transpired since the dawn of time. The animal kingdom is the same way. The superior species becomes de facto dominant.

Some nations overcome others and typically it's because one side must surrender to the other or bear the consequences of more bloodshed. But none of that speaks to the reasons for the warring in the first place and the conditions that brought it about.

None of the above is an excuse to conscript their citizenry to avoid being invaded. A little mutual respect would be nice. I personally believe, although I may never get the chance to prove it, is that cooperation will always produce better outcomes than being compelled to do the same.

Yes, democratic countries have visited great harm on other countries. The only alternatives to democracy, dictatorships/monarchies, have done far worse to other countries than to their own people (eg ww2). You're saying democracies are more gentle to their own people than outsiders so they're still evil, but I'm refuting that since all the alternatives are too in the same context, so this argument is a straw man against the original assertion, that democracies are not noted for human rights and for fairness.

Democracies do have a better human rights record than the any alternatives and are less prone to human rights abuses.  We are a violent species so all forms of society will have issues but democracies are the best places to live.

So if it could be proved that such a system could exist without a state would you reevaluate your ideology?

Yes.  My ideology is that the state should be as small as possible.  Things like health, education and defence that are cheaper and better if done by the state are fine.  But if you have a way to do it cheaper and better without the state, I support it.  For example, phones work better in the private sector in my opinion.

That's reasonable.  I'm not convinced that any of those are done more efficiently by the government and that courts cannot exist without the state, but at the moment I don't have a compelling argument to support my position.  It's something I'd like to research more as I have time.  Reading your posts in this thread have given me some new angles to approach the questions from.

Apologies to the mods for double-posting if that sort of thing is frowned upon, but I wanted to answer this question in a separate post for clarity.

You seem to feel like I have straw-manned your position.  I'm not sure why.  I was replying to Hawker's post, which was a reply to a post by Bind.  All I was saying is that, yes, it's true that democracies tend to treat their people better than dictatorships and feudal monarchies, but it's important to keep in mind that they sometimes commit horrible atrocities upon the citizens of other nations.  Democracies aren't completely benevolent and peaceful like many people seem to think.  I just feel it's important to remember this.  That's the only point I was trying to make.

Alright, it wasn't my position I was necessarily defending.

The real crux here is that its the people in power that hurt other nations, not the power structures themselves. If Bush was in charge of Iraq and thought he could take Kuwait, he would have tried too.

Democracy lets the ordinary citizen have some input into the leaders, whereas monarchs and dictators usually take it by force / divine right. What one does with that power after it has suitably corrupted them, is not the structure's fault, necessarily, as laws have some part to play also.

At the very least, democracies have the means to remove especially evil leaders faster than dictatorships/monarchies. They're not benevolent, yes, but that doesn't make them less noted for their fairness compared to everything else.

There is a double negative there but if I take it out I get that "democracies...noted for their fairness compared to everything else."

Could it possibly be that we are in agreement?  On the Internet? surely some mistake :O

On this, yes agreement...I was actually defending your point to begin with. I probably could have been clearer. Automagic was making the assertion that democracies cannot be noted for fairness 'in general' because they're evil to foreigners, which I thought was unfair, since dictatorships are arguably even more evil to foreigners anyway, and by comparison they're still better.

If I argue with you, hopefully you won't think it's a personal attack. I'm more interested in the logic of the argument, as this will hopefully attest.

something like this ?

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=6775.msg103698#msg103698

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5256.msg78490#msg78490

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=3628.msg52787#msg52787

senbonzakura - is a Somali tribe with its culture suffused in Islamic law really an ideal model.  Settlements where rape victims are forced to marry their abusers and female circumcision is enforced are not my idea of an improvement on what we have now.

1. rape victims marrying their attacker/abuser is in the bible, not in the Quran. no such law exists in the Quran/shariah. if you do find cases where the victim is forced to or coerced to marry the abuser(in islamic countries), then that is against shariah/islamic law & condemned.

2. some places like egypt , have female circumcision, again its to do with culture. many non-islamic societies enforce female circumcision, its to do with culture.

3. I am not here to defend 'xeer' or some practices in some islamic societies/cultures , I just gave these links as some may find it interesting (regarding a system that exists without a state)

We are both agreed that these are systems that exist without a state and we are both agreed that these are dreadful systems.  Its nice that we agree :D

I didnt agree to anything  :D

I just posted links for info that is related to what was being discussed here.

So dont put words into my mouth :)

Do you disagree that they are stateless systems and do you disagree that they are dreadful?