Bitcoin Forum

Other => Politics & Society => Topic started by: hazek on May 26, 2012, 12:54:25 PM



Title: A Way To Be Free - Robert LeFevre
Post by: hazek on May 26, 2012, 12:54:25 PM
This excerpt is one of the best things I have read in a long while:

http://economicsandliberty.wordpress.com/a-way-to-be-free/?like=1&_wpnonce=2edf2fd66d

I wish I didn't need to pay some publisher $30 to read the whole thing but this excerpt just blew me away. It echoed thoughts precisely how I think about freedom and getting to a free society and right & wrong and good & bad and it gives me even more confirmation that my goal approach to freedom(goal: to live in a society that has the freedom to maximize it's potential) is the only way to really figure out the true requirements for reaching it and not some mythical universal rule of right or wrong i.e. morality.

 

Please give it a read and share your thoughts.


Title: Re: A Way To Be Free - Robert LeFevre
Post by: Hawker on May 26, 2012, 07:07:57 PM
Quote
I believe I have stated the position of my adversaries fairly.  There is invariably the same oversight.  If we have a government, it will be human beings who will be hired to restrain the evil in others.  Who are these persons who will be hired, either by popularity contests or by direct application?  They will be just as human and as much disposed toward evil as those to be restrained.

That is simply untrue. It fails at 3 levels:
- Whether its Genghiz Khan or Captain John Hawkins, human history shows that if a weak society exists, a large organised society will come along and enslave it.  Having your own democratic state is preferable to that.  Ask any Afghan or Iraqi...heck ask any Palestinian or Jew what happens when you are don't have an army that can protect you.
- Within any society, there is a small minority whose anti-social behaviour requires the rest of us to spend money on police, courts and jails.  They are more disposed towards evil than the rest of us.  To make an argument that ignores this reality is sophistry.
- The very concept of liberty only exists in societies where there is a state that guarantees life and property.  If you had to worry about being killed or robbed the way a Chinese or Russian subject does, you wouldn't care about liberty.  you'd only care about security and corruption.  The very fact that you care about liberty shows you live in a free society with proper laws.  I know this is a stretch but its close to what we all know from experience.

Having made his bogus assertions, LeFevre then proceeds to base his entire argument on the idea that democratic government is not perfect.  So what?  Its preferable to being ruled by foreign invaders and local criminals.  My car isn't perfect but I don't want to go barefoot.  Likewise, my government isn't perfect but I don't want live without things like a free market and property rights.


Title: Re: A Way To Be Free - Robert LeFevre
Post by: frisco2 on May 27, 2012, 07:07:08 AM
Anarchism can not work. One drop of grease oil would spoil a bucket of honey.


Title: Re: A Way To Be Free - Robert LeFevre
Post by: hashman on May 28, 2012, 05:43:54 PM
Quote
I believe I have stated the position of my adversaries fairly.  There is invariably the same oversight.  If we have a government, it will be human beings who will be hired to restrain the evil in others.  Who are these persons who will be hired, either by popularity contests or by direct application?  They will be just as human and as much disposed toward evil as those to be restrained.

That is simply untrue. It fails at 3 levels:
- Whether its Genghiz Khan or Captain John Hawkins, human history shows that if a weak society exists, a large organised society will come along and enslave it.  Having your own democratic state is preferable to that.  Ask any Afghan or Iraqi...heck ask any Palestinian or Jew what happens when you are don't have an army that can protect you.

Ask who what?  What are you referring to as a large organized society and why?   

- Within any society, there is a small minority whose anti-social behaviour requires the rest of us to spend money on police, courts and jails.  They are more disposed towards evil than the rest of us.  To make an argument that ignores this reality is sophistry.

True, and to make an argument that this small minority of anti-social behavior will be absent in your police/army/armed gang member/prison guard/executive branch of "organized society" would be still more dangerous sophistry. 



- The very concept of liberty only exists in societies where there is a state that guarantees life and property.  If you had to worry about being killed or robbed the way a Chinese or Russian subject does, you wouldn't care about liberty.  you'd only care about security and corruption.  The very fact that you care about liberty shows you live in a free society with proper laws.  I know this is a stretch but its close to what we all know from experience.


Just because the tax regimes known as PRC and the Russian Federation have many fewer political prisoners (in absolute number and per capita) and in many ways less central authoritarian control than representatives of the United States Corp. does not mean they are not subject to the same security flaw:  some humans are given weapons and unchecked "authority" (the opportunity to make mistakes) and suffering the consequences.  And lets be clear about these consequences: human suffering from all parties involved, loss of efficiency in endeavors of all participants, reduction of chances of survival of humanity as hoped for by participants.           



Having made his bogus assertions, LeFevre then proceeds to base his entire argument on the idea that democratic government is not perfect.  So what?  Its preferable to being ruled by foreign invaders and local criminals.  My car isn't perfect but I don't want to go barefoot.  Likewise, my government isn't perfect but I don't want live without things like a free market and property rights.


What bogus assertion exactly? 
Yeah, LeFevre fails to point out that government can mean something as simple as a father telling his child not to shit on the carpet.  He needs to be a little more clear about the problem he is trying to address:  power corrupts.  Milgram's experiment.  The founding fathers of the USA v0 had some of this in mind with a construction of a government of limited power.   Fortunately  the time is ripe for a little more of this intelligence to be used for governments of all levels :)         



Title: Re: A Way To Be Free - Robert LeFevre
Post by: epbaha on May 28, 2012, 07:14:38 PM
This excerpt is one of the best things I have read in a long while:

http://economicsandliberty.wordpress.com/a-way-to-be-free/?like=1&_wpnonce=2edf2fd66d

I wish I didn't need to pay some publisher $30 to read the whole thing

If you haven't already bought it, pay $30 (http://goo.gl/rGnwL (http://goo.gl/rGnwL)).  After reading, sell it for $30 on Amazon or on the forums here.  Your financial loss will be...

Amazon fees plus $3 shipping

$3 shipping if you can sell on the forums.


Title: Re: A Way To Be Free - Robert LeFevre
Post by: Hawker on May 28, 2012, 07:30:08 PM
Quote
I believe I have stated the position of my adversaries fairly.  There is invariably the same oversight.  If we have a government, it will be human beings who will be hired to restrain the evil in others.  Who are these persons who will be hired, either by popularity contests or by direct application?  They will be just as human and as much disposed toward evil as those to be restrained.

That is simply untrue. It fails at 3 levels:
- Whether its Genghiz Khan or Captain John Hawkins, human history shows that if a weak society exists, a large organised society will come along and enslave it.  Having your own democratic state is preferable to that.  Ask any Afghan or Iraqi...heck ask any Palestinian or Jew what happens when you are don't have an army that can protect you.

Ask who what?  What are you referring to as a large organized society and why?   


Question is very simple; what happens when you have the misfortune to live in a society without a state to protect you from bad guys?  Whether the answer you get is genocide, expropriation, slavery or what, its unpleasant compared to being in a society where you are free behind a decent military and judicial system.


Title: Re: A Way To Be Free - Robert LeFevre
Post by: hazek on May 28, 2012, 07:39:44 PM
Quote
I believe I have stated the position of my adversaries fairly.  There is invariably the same oversight.  If we have a government, it will be human beings who will be hired to restrain the evil in others.  Who are these persons who will be hired, either by popularity contests or by direct application?  They will be just as human and as much disposed toward evil as those to be restrained.

That is simply untrue. It fails at 3 levels:
- Whether its Genghiz Khan or Captain John Hawkins, human history shows that if a weak society exists, a large organised society will come along and enslave it.  Having your own democratic state is preferable to that.  Ask any Afghan or Iraqi...heck ask any Palestinian or Jew what happens when you are don't have an army that can protect you.

Ask who what?  What are you referring to as a large organized society and why?    


Question is very simple; what happens when you have the misfortune to live in a society without a state to protect you from bad guys?  Whether the answer you get is genocide, expropriation, slavery or what, its unpleasant compared to being in a society where you are free behind a decent military and judicial system.


Well as I'm not an idiot or a pussy and because I value personal freedom above all else I rather take door nr. 1 and find out what the future will bring instead of door nr. 2 where I have people robbing me and forcing me to obey their rules under threat of violence so that they can protect me from maybe getting robbed or attacked by someone else.


Title: Re: A Way To Be Free - Robert LeFevre
Post by: Hawker on May 29, 2012, 07:01:04 AM
...snip...

Well as I'm not an idiot or a pussy and because I value personal freedom above all else I rather take door nr. 1 and find out what the future will bring instead of door nr. 2 where I have people robbing me and forcing me to obey their rules under threat of violence so that they can protect me from maybe getting robbed or attacked by someone else.

As I said "Whether its Genghiz Khan or Captain John Hawkins, human history shows that if a weak society exists, a large organised society will come along and enslave it.  Having your own democratic state is preferable to that."  In this case, no state is door 2 while a democratic state is the ideal option for door 1.

LeFevre had the absurd view that if you are kidnapped, its wrong to damage the ropes of your abductor as they are not your ropes.  His fantasies about a world where there is no state to protect you from abduction and about being a well behaved captive really strike me as being more of a sexual than a political thing. 


Title: Re: A Way To Be Free - Robert LeFevre
Post by: justusranvier on May 29, 2012, 07:08:31 AM
Question is very simple; what happens when you have the misfortune to live in a society without a state to protect you from bad guys?  Whether the answer you get is genocide, expropriation, slavery or what, its unpleasant compared to being in a society where you are free behind a decent military and judicial system.
It seems to be a bit of a false dichotomy.

You appear to be comparing the reality of what life is like with a state: genocide, expropriation, slavery, no protection from the bad guys (the worst ones get government jobs) with an imaginary utopian state that doesn't actually exist (free with a decent military and judicial system).


Title: Re: A Way To Be Free - Robert LeFevre
Post by: Hawker on May 29, 2012, 07:17:25 AM
Question is very simple; what happens when you have the misfortune to live in a society without a state to protect you from bad guys?  Whether the answer you get is genocide, expropriation, slavery or what, its unpleasant compared to being in a society where you are free behind a decent military and judicial system.
It seems to be a bit of a false dichotomy.

You appear to be comparing the reality of what life is like with a state: genocide, expropriation, slavery, no protection from the bad guys (the worst ones get government jobs) with an imaginary utopian state that doesn't actually exist (free with a decent military and judicial system).

If you live in a state that practices genocide, expropriation, slavery and gives no protection from the bad guys, you have my sympathy.  Where is this hell hole you are from?


Title: Re: A Way To Be Free - Robert LeFevre
Post by: justusranvier on May 29, 2012, 07:18:34 AM
If you live in a state that practices genocide, expropriation, slavery and gives no protection from the bad guys, you have my sympathy.  Where is this hell hole you are from?
Can you list one that doesn't do any of those things?


Title: Re: A Way To Be Free - Robert LeFevre
Post by: Hawker on May 29, 2012, 07:22:17 AM
If you live in a state that practices genocide, expropriation, slavery and gives no protection from the bad guys, you have my sympathy.  Where is this hell hole you are from?
Can you list one that doesn't do any of those things?

All states in EU, the US, Australia...there are very few bad democratic states.  Now please do reply about which you are from.


Title: Re: A Way To Be Free - Robert LeFevre
Post by: justusranvier on May 29, 2012, 07:27:15 AM
All states in EU, the US, Australia...
The people living in Iraq, owners and customers of Rawesome Foods, Michael Paxton, clients of MF Global, and Guantanamo detainees would disagree with your assertion, just to name a few.


Title: Re: A Way To Be Free - Robert LeFevre
Post by: Hawker on May 29, 2012, 07:33:35 AM
All states in EU, the US, Australia...
The people living in Iraq, owners and customers of Rawesome Foods, Michael Paxton, clients of MF Global, and Guantanamo detainees would disagree with your assertion, just to name a few.

Are you saying we are not perfect?  And that if we are not perfect, then we have to give up our lives in the most peaceful prosperous societies in history?

My car isn't perfect.  On your logic, I should walk barefoot everywhere.


Title: Re: A Way To Be Free - Robert LeFevre
Post by: justusranvier on May 29, 2012, 07:39:14 AM
Are you saying we are not perfect?  And that if we are not perfect, then we have to give up our lives in the most peaceful prosperous societies in history?

My car isn't perfect.  On your logic, I should walk barefoot everywhere.
I'm saying that our current societies are incredibly violent, but by social convention we all pretend not to see the violence and agree not to talk about it.

People who talk about the supposed horrors of a stateless society are engaging in psychological projection and are merely describing the features of the state system which are not politically correct to discuss openly.


Title: Re: A Way To Be Free - Robert LeFevre
Post by: Hawker on May 29, 2012, 08:10:36 AM
Are you saying we are not perfect?  And that if we are not perfect, then we have to give up our lives in the most peaceful prosperous societies in history?

My car isn't perfect.  On your logic, I should walk barefoot everywhere.
I'm saying that our current societies are incredibly violent, but by social convention we all pretend not to see the violence and agree not to talk about it.

People who talk about the supposed horrors of a stateless society are engaging in psychological projection and are merely describing the features of the state system which are not politically correct to discuss openly.

Projection? You are making an assertion without offering any evidence for it.  Facts please.  Please point to a stateless society with a standard of living comparable to the UK, a murder rate comparable to the UK and a life expectancy comparable to the UK. 

I notice you still haven't said what hell hole you are from.  I'm curious to find out this place you live with its genocide and slavery.


Title: Re: A Way To Be Free - Robert LeFevre
Post by: hazek on May 29, 2012, 09:35:49 AM
If you live in a state that practices genocide, expropriation, slavery and gives no protection from the bad guys, you have my sympathy.  Where is this hell hole you are from?
Can you list one that doesn't do any of those things?

All states in EU, the US, Australia...there are very few bad democratic states.  Now please do reply about which you are from.

Oh the ignorance.  ::) The US for example has the largest prison population on the planet, half of it for non violent breaking of arbitrary rules about what one can do with their body. In any of the listed states you are robbed of between 35-60% of everything you earn in a year. Is that what you call protection?

Btw you make a non sequitur when you think I know or read and now support and hold as the truth everything and anything LeFevre ever wrote. I don't. But I do agree 100% with what you can find at the link in the OP. For example LeFevre believed in pacifism, I do not.


Title: Re: A Way To Be Free - Robert LeFevre
Post by: Hawker on May 29, 2012, 09:47:54 AM
If you live in a state that practices genocide, expropriation, slavery and gives no protection from the bad guys, you have my sympathy.  Where is this hell hole you are from?
Can you list one that doesn't do any of those things?

All states in EU, the US, Australia...there are very few bad democratic states.  Now please do reply about which you are from.

Oh the ignorance.  ::) The US for example has the largest prison population on the planet, half of it for non violent breaking of arbitrary rules about what one can do with their body. In any of the listed states you are robbed of between 35-60% of everything you earn in a year.

Btw you make a non sequitur when you think I know or read and now support and hold as the truth everything and anything LeFevre ever wrote. I don't. But I do agree 100% with what you can find at the link in the OP. For example LeFevre believed in pacifism, I do not.

LeFevre believed there should be no state.  That means no private property, no right to life and basically being at the mercy of those who do have states.  Its not a good alternative to living in a democracy.

If you are unhappy about the US prison population, organise with like minded people and change it.  Without wanting to sound nasty, its not a problem with democracy that the American public are so enthusiastic about locking people up; its a problem with your society.  Change people's minds and the prison population will fall.


Title: Re: A Way To Be Free - Robert LeFevre
Post by: hazek on May 29, 2012, 09:56:45 AM
If you live in a state that practices genocide, expropriation, slavery and gives no protection from the bad guys, you have my sympathy.  Where is this hell hole you are from?
Can you list one that doesn't do any of those things?

All states in EU, the US, Australia...there are very few bad democratic states.  Now please do reply about which you are from.

Oh the ignorance.  ::) The US for example has the largest prison population on the planet, half of it for non violent breaking of arbitrary rules about what one can do with their body. In any of the listed states you are robbed of between 35-60% of everything you earn in a year.

Btw you make a non sequitur when you think I know or read and now support and hold as the truth everything and anything LeFevre ever wrote. I don't. But I do agree 100% with what you can find at the link in the OP. For example LeFevre believed in pacifism, I do not.

LeFevre believed there should be no state.  

I don't care what he believed, it's a non sequitur that I have to in order to 100% agree with what he wrote at the link in the OP.


Title: Re: A Way To Be Free - Robert LeFevre
Post by: hazek on May 29, 2012, 09:59:51 AM
its not a problem with democracy that the American public are so enthusiastic about locking people up; its a problem with your society.  Change people's minds and the prison population will fall.

Riiiiiight, it's not the state, no no, people are simply "enthusiastic" about trying to resists and dying pointlessly when a gang of heavily armed men decides to throw someone in a cage.  ::)


Title: Re: A Way To Be Free - Robert LeFevre
Post by: Hawker on May 29, 2012, 10:11:26 AM
its not a problem with democracy that the American public are so enthusiastic about locking people up; its a problem with your society.  Change people's minds and the prison population will fall.

Riiiiiight, it's not the state, no no, people are simply "enthusiastic" about trying to resists and dying pointlessly when a gang of heavily armed men decides to throw someone in a cage.  ::)

If you vote for tough drug laws and long jail sentences, you will get exactly that.  And Americans have always voted for such laws.  In the UK, most murderers are released after about 8 years for good behaviour.  In the US, the same guys would waste their lives away in jails.  That because if an American politician stands up and says "Release murderers after 8 years" he will not be re-elected.

It seems to me that you are creating this mysterious entity called "government" and trying to blame it for your own people's choices.  In a democracy, there is no dividing line between the government and the people who vote for the government.  Deal with your neighbours attitudes and then you will find that the rate of imprisonment falls.  


Title: Re: A Way To Be Free - Robert LeFevre
Post by: hazek on May 29, 2012, 10:21:13 AM
its not a problem with democracy that the American public are so enthusiastic about locking people up; its a problem with your society.  Change people's minds and the prison population will fall.

Riiiiiight, it's not the state, no no, people are simply "enthusiastic" about trying to resists and dying pointlessly when a gang of heavily armed men decides to throw someone in a cage.  ::)

If you vote for tough drug laws and long jail sentences, you will get exactly that.  And Americans have always voted for such laws.  In the UK, most murderers are released after about 8 years for good behaviour.  In the US, the same guys waste their lives away in jails.  That because if an American politician stands up and says "Release murderers after 8 years" he will not be re-elected.

It seems to me that you are creating this mysterious entity called "government" and trying to blame it for your own people's choices.  In a democracy, there is no dividing line between the government and the people who vote for the government.  Deal with your neighbours attitudes and then you will find that the rate of imprisonment falls.  

Look it's ok, I'm not going to argue with you, there's no point. You are a delusional true believer. You want to be a good slave, I don't. You can't possibly change my mind to not want my freedom and I know you are incapable of rational thought because for you to see the gun in the room that is the state will simply cause you way too much cognitive dissonance and you simply reject the reality and cling on to your fantasy. It's human nature.


Title: Re: A Way To Be Free - Robert LeFevre
Post by: asdf on May 29, 2012, 10:23:13 AM
Quote
I believe I have stated the position of my adversaries fairly.  There is invariably the same oversight.  If we have a government, it will be human beings who will be hired to restrain the evil in others.  Who are these persons who will be hired, either by popularity contests or by direct application?  They will be just as human and as much disposed toward evil as those to be restrained.

That is simply untrue. It fails at 3 levels:
- Whether its Genghiz Khan or Captain John Hawkins, human history shows that if a weak society exists, a large organised society will come along and enslave it.  Having your own democratic state is preferable to that.  Ask any Afghan or Iraqi...heck ask any Palestinian or Jew what happens when you are don't have an army that can protect you.

Ask who what?  What are you referring to as a large organized society and why?   


Question is very simple; what happens when you have the misfortune to live in a society without a state to protect you from bad guys?  Whether the answer you get is genocide, expropriation, slavery or what, its unpleasant compared to being in a society where you are free behind a decent military and judicial system.


You assume that a free society cannot defend itself from outside aggression. If people desire defense, a market will emerge to supply this need.


Title: Re: A Way To Be Free - Robert LeFevre
Post by: Hawker on May 29, 2012, 10:25:30 AM
...snip...

Look it's ok, I'm not going to argue with you, there's no point. You are a delusional true believer. You want to be a good slave, I don't. You can't possibly change my mind to not want my freedom and I know you are incapable of rational thought because for you to see the gun in the room that is the state will simply cause you way too much cognitive dissonance and you simply reject the reality and cling on to your fantasy. It's human nature.

LeFevre's article fails for the reasons I set out in https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=83760.msg923827#msg923827

Your response is to say that anyone who points out where he fails is delusional, a slave, whatever.  Thats called an ad hominem argument.  Its a fallacy - look it up.


Title: Re: A Way To Be Free - Robert LeFevre
Post by: asdf on May 29, 2012, 10:28:58 AM
its not a problem with democracy that the American public are so enthusiastic about locking people up; its a problem with your society.  Change people's minds and the prison population will fall.

Riiiiiight, it's not the state, no no, people are simply "enthusiastic" about trying to resists and dying pointlessly when a gang of heavily armed men decides to throw someone in a cage.  ::)

If you vote for tough drug laws and long jail sentences, you will get exactly that.  And Americans have always voted for such laws.  In the UK, most murderers are released after about 8 years for good behaviour.  In the US, the same guys would waste their lives away in jails.  That because if an American politician stands up and says "Release murderers after 8 years" he will not be re-elected.

It seems to me that you are creating this mysterious entity called "government" and trying to blame it for your own people's choices.  In a democracy, there is no dividing line between the government and the people who vote for the government.  Deal with your neighbours attitudes and then you will find that the rate of imprisonment falls.  

But this is the state! The problem is precisely that we have a system where we vote for one of two sociopaths, based on who they say they will apply the violent power of the state to. In this case non-violent drug users.

The problem isn't that we voted for "tough drug laws" (i fucking didn't btw), but that we are using violence to solve social problems (ie. the state).


Title: Re: A Way To Be Free - Robert LeFevre
Post by: Hawker on May 29, 2012, 10:29:25 AM
...snip...

You assume that a free society cannot defend itself from outside aggression. If people desire defense, a market will emerge to supply this need.

That market will is working at the moment in the Congo, Somalia and Afghanistan.  States like Rwanda, Eritrea and India are sponsoring militias and wreaking havoc on the people who live in those states.  Since individuals can never outspend a state, its a market in which those who don't have a state are always the losers.


Title: Re: A Way To Be Free - Robert LeFevre
Post by: Hawker on May 29, 2012, 10:36:46 AM
...snip...

But this is the state! The problem is precisely that we have a system where we vote for one of two sociopaths, based on who they say they will apply the violent power of the state to. In this case non-violent drug users.

The problem isn't that we voted for "tough drug laws" (i fucking didn't btw), but that we are using violence to solve social problems (ie. the state).

There are reasons why the rule of law is better than the rule of the mob.  The state restrains violence.  Take it away and you have lynch law.  If you lived in the midst of a large group of people and the only form of justice is mob law, you would regard a state with its rules about when you can kill someone as paradise.  For example, here in the UK people decided to remove paedophiles from their community.  They attacked a paediatrician.  

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/wales/901723.stm

That's what happens when you don't have courts.  

EDIT: just realised that people are still being killed by mobs making mistakes like this:
http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/courts-crime/2012/03/30/mum-and-teenager-locked-up-for-vigilante-killing-of-innocent-man-wrongly-branded-a-paedophile-86908-23806339/

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1234783/Innocent-man-accused-paedophile-hounded-death-vigilantes.html

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/848737.stm

All examples of what happens when you replace the rule of law with allowing anyone who thinks they are morally right to apply their own justice.


Title: Re: A Way To Be Free - Robert LeFevre
Post by: asdf on May 29, 2012, 11:24:53 AM
...snip...

You assume that a free society cannot defend itself from outside aggression. If people desire defense, a market will emerge to supply this need.

That market will is working at the moment in the Congo, Somalia and Afghanistan.  States like Rwanda, Eritrea and India are sponsoring militias and wreaking havoc on the people who live in those states.  Since individuals can never outspend a state, its a market in which those who don't have a state are always the losers.

Are you claiming that these societies are stateless?

Why does an individual need to outspend a state for private defense?


Title: Re: A Way To Be Free - Robert LeFevre
Post by: asdf on May 29, 2012, 11:48:47 AM
...snip...

But this is the state! The problem is precisely that we have a system where we vote for one of two sociopaths, based on who they say they will apply the violent power of the state to. In this case non-violent drug users.

The problem isn't that we voted for "tough drug laws" (i fucking didn't btw), but that we are using violence to solve social problems (ie. the state).

There are reasons why the rule of law is better than the rule of the mob.  The state restrains violence.  Take it away and you have lynch law.  If you lived in the midst of a large group of people and the only form of justice is mob law, you would regard a state with its rules about when you can kill someone as paradise.  For example, here in the UK people decided to remove paedophiles from their community.  They attacked a paediatrician.  

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/wales/901723.stm

That's what happens when you don't have courts.  

EDIT: just realised that people are still being killed by mobs making mistakes like this:
http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/courts-crime/2012/03/30/mum-and-teenager-locked-up-for-vigilante-killing-of-innocent-man-wrongly-branded-a-paedophile-86908-23806339/

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1234783/Innocent-man-accused-paedophile-hounded-death-vigilantes.html

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/848737.stm
Again, you are starting from the premise that a free society can't provide the services of the state. Why can't the market provide services that protect peoples property and person?
All examples of what happens when you replace the rule of law with allowing anyone who thinks they are morally right to apply their own justice.

All the examples you cite are occurring in societies with large state institutions.

A stateless society is not "anyone who thinks they are morally right to apply their own justice". Do you really think anyone who behaved like this would not suffer any consequences?

Learn about Anarcho-capitalism. It's a social system based on a pure free market and is the absolute application of the Non Aggression Principal (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-aggression_principle), which the vast majority of people already believe and apply in their personal lives. Incidentally, the state (a violently enforced political authority), by definition, contradicts this principal.


Title: Re: A Way To Be Free - Robert LeFevre
Post by: Hawker on May 29, 2012, 12:04:57 PM
...snip...
All the examples you cite are occurring in societies with large state institutions.

A stateless society is not "anyone who thinks they are morally right to apply their own justice". Do you really think anyone who behaved like this would not suffer any consequences?

Learn about Anarcho-capitalism. It's a social system based on a pure free market and is the absolute application of the Non Aggression Principal (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-aggression_principle), which the vast majority of people already believe and apply in their personal lives. Incidentally, the state (a violently enforced political authority), by definition, contradicts this principal.

The problem with Anarcho-capitalism is that it has no way to provide private property rights, justice or defence.

Without a system of legal title and a court system to protect it, you don't have property so your society will be very poor.  With a police and justice system, people will have to enforce their own version of justice; you are right that they will suffer consequences but the overall effect is that life is more arbitrary violence.  Without defence, foreign states will sponsor local proxies as happens in Somalia and the like.

In short, Anarcho-capitalism is that it cannot work as well as a democratic state.  Its like comparing walking barefoot to travelling by car; sure barefoot is nice but a car is almost always nicer.


Title: Re: A Way To Be Free - Robert LeFevre
Post by: justusranvier on May 29, 2012, 03:45:23 PM
The problem with Anarcho-capitalism is that it has no way to provide private property rights, justice or defence.

Without a system of legal title and a court system to protect it, you don't have property so your society will be very poor.  With a police and justice system, people will have to enforce their own version of justice; you are right that they will suffer consequences but the overall effect is that life is more arbitrary violence.
This is exactly what life is like with a state.

None of the western democracies allow for private property ownership of land. All land is rented from the state. Justice is only available for those that can afford it and certain classes of people are above the law entirely. In some countries your property can be seized at a whim by any uniformed thug who thinks it might have come from the proceeds of growing the wrong vegetables.

All of your criticisms of anarchy are merely describing what it's like to live under the rule of a state.


Title: Re: A Way To Be Free - Robert LeFevre
Post by: Hawker on May 29, 2012, 03:58:27 PM
The problem with Anarcho-capitalism is that it has no way to provide private property rights, justice or defence.

Without a system of legal title and a court system to protect it, you don't have property so your society will be very poor.  With a police and justice system, people will have to enforce their own version of justice; you are right that they will suffer consequences but the overall effect is that life is more arbitrary violence.

This is exactly what life is like with a state.

None of the western democracies allow for private property ownership of land. All land is rented from the state. Justice is only available for those that can afford it and certain classes of people are above the law entirely. In some countries your property can be seized at a whim by any uniformed thug who thinks it might have come from the proceeds of growing the wrong vegetables.

All of your criticisms of anarchy are merely describing what it's like to live under the rule of a state.

Um, the logic failure you make is that you say the state isn't perfect so we must do without its benefits.  99.9999% of property owners have secure title and are happy with that.  There will be a few cases of injustice but that doesn't mean the 99.9999% of us with houses and shares need to do without them does it?  Justice is available for all in the US and UK and most decent democracies as the courts facilitate people who represent themselves and there are no win/no fee lawyers is you have a good case.  

I think you are hinting that if there were anarchy, you could grow narcotics freely.  But if there were no state and you were growing drugs you would still live in a community of people who used to vote for anti-narcotic drug laws so you could expect mobs with AK-47s burning you out.  Its not the law is the problem with drugs - its people's beliefs.


Title: Re: A Way To Be Free - Robert LeFevre
Post by: justusranvier on May 29, 2012, 04:01:40 PM
Um, the logic failure you make is that you say the state isn't perfect so we must do without its benefits.
I'm just applying the same standard you use to criticize a stateless society. You condemn freedom because it isn't perfect yet tolerate all the imperfections of the state as being irrelevant.


Title: Re: A Way To Be Free - Robert LeFevre
Post by: Hawker on May 29, 2012, 04:03:12 PM
Um, the logic failure you make is that you say the state isn't perfect so we must do without its benefits.
I'm just applying the same standard you use to criticize a stateless society. You condemn freedom because it isn't perfect yet tolerate all the imperfections of the state as being irrelevant.

I compare the 2 and say that a state has less imperfections.  There is no good system - we will always be talking about the least bad.  But anarchy is way worse in that there is no private property, no rule of law and no defence system.


Title: Re: A Way To Be Free - Robert LeFevre
Post by: justusranvier on May 29, 2012, 04:46:21 PM
Quote
I’d like you to imagine a man standing in the middle of a large meadow. You spend some time watching this man, and it doesn’t take you very long to notice that he paces back and forth in a small square, about 10 feet on either side. That’s all. Just 10 feet.

After a few hours of watching him do this, you walk up to him. When you reach forward to shake his hand, however, your fingers are burned by a strong electrical shock from an invisible barrier.

Startled – and hurt – you cry out. The man looks up.

“What’s the matter?” he asks.

“I just ran into this invisible wall which gave me a hell of a shock!” you cry.

He frowns. “I didn’t see anything.”

You blink. “Really? You’ve never heard or seen or felt this invisible barrier?”

He shakes his head slowly. “What invisible barrier?”

“The one that surrounds you – the one that keeps you penned in this little 10 foot square!”

“What little 10 foot square?” he demands. “There’s no little 10 foot square! I can go wherever the hell I want!”

“No you can’t!”

“Who the hell are you to tell me where I can and cannot go? I decide that!”

“I’m not telling you where you can and cannot go – I’m just telling you what you are actually doing!”

“What on earth are you talking about?”

“Well, I’ve been watching you for the past few hours, and you’re standing in the middle of this great big meadow, and yet all you do is pace back and forth 10 feet.”

“I can go anywhere I damn well please!” the man repeats angrily.

“You say that, but all you do is pace around and around in a little 10 foot square! If you can go anywhere you please, why don’t you just try taking one extra step?”

“I have no idea what you’re talking about,” he growls. “Now get the hell off my damn property!”

“Wait – I can show you!” You reach down and pick up some grass. You throw it towards the man. A few feet away from his face, the blades of grass burst into flame and evaporate. You do this several times, proving definitively that there is in fact an invisible force field that surrounds him, roughly 10 feet by 10 feet.

“Do you see?” you ask eagerly. “Do you see that you are in an invisible cage?”

“Get the hell off my property, you madman!” he cries, shaking with rage.

“But you must know that you are in an invisible cage,” you cry out. “You must know that, because you never try to go outside these walls. You must have at one time tried to break free of this cage, and were burned by the electric shock, which is why you never take more than a few steps before turning around! Don’t you see?”

He pulls out a gun, screams that he has a principle of shooting trespassers, and, quite sensibly, you run away.

This is the great paradox of attempting to teach people what they already know. Everybody claims complete freedom, but paces back and forth, trapped in a little square. Everyone is surrounded by the invisible cages of culture and mythology, and denies it completely. The evidence of these cages is very clear, because people always turn back just before they hit them. But then they deny that these cages exist.

Everybody acts as if they are perfectly free, and perfectly enslaved at the same time. Nobody admits to being in a prison, but everyone shuffles around in an invisible 10 x 10 cell.

In the same way, everyone tells you that they are free, but in fact everyone is trapped in little tiny cells of allowable conversation. Everybody tells you they love you, but strenuously avoids talking about what love is, or what about you they love.

Everyone tells you to be good, but they have no idea what goodness is – and will savage you for even having the temerity to ask the question.

Everybody talks about the truth, but the real truth is that nobody can talk about the truth – what it is, how it is defined, how it is verified, and its value.


Title: Re: A Way To Be Free - Robert LeFevre
Post by: Hawker on May 29, 2012, 05:08:09 PM
Um, the logic failure you make is that you say the state isn't perfect so we must do without its benefits.
I'm just applying the same standard you use to criticize a stateless society. You condemn freedom because it isn't perfect yet tolerate all the imperfections of the state as being irrelevant.

I compare the 2 and say that a state has less imperfections.  There is no good system - we will always be talking about the least bad.  But anarchy is way worse in that there is no private property, no rule of law and no defence system.

Your parable suggest you skipped reading that post.


Title: Re: A Way To Be Free - Robert LeFevre
Post by: justusranvier on May 29, 2012, 05:13:17 PM
Um, the logic failure you make is that you say the state isn't perfect so we must do without its benefits.
I'm just applying the same standard you use to criticize a stateless society. You condemn freedom because it isn't perfect yet tolerate all the imperfections of the state as being irrelevant.

I compare the 2 and say that a state has less imperfections.  There is no good system - we will always be talking about the least bad.  But anarchy is way worse in that there is no private property, no rule of law and no defence system.

Your parable suggest you skipped reading that post.
I stopped reading at that point because you put forward a speculative hypothesis as fact without providing a methodology for testing the hypothesis.

Based on your history of moving goal posts and other forms of sophism I don't expect that you'll provide such a methodology or will agree to change your position should your hypothesis be falsified so I'm not interested in continuing the debate. I posted the parable for the benefit of other people reading the thread.


Title: Re: A Way To Be Free - Robert LeFevre
Post by: Hawker on May 29, 2012, 05:22:10 PM
Um, the logic failure you make is that you say the state isn't perfect so we must do without its benefits.
I'm just applying the same standard you use to criticize a stateless society. You condemn freedom because it isn't perfect yet tolerate all the imperfections of the state as being irrelevant.

I compare the 2 and say that a state has less imperfections.  There is no good system - we will always be talking about the least bad.  But anarchy is way worse in that there is no private property, no rule of law and no defence system.

Your parable suggest you skipped reading that post.
I stopped reading at that point because you put forward a speculative hypothesis as fact without providing a methodology for testing the hypothesis.

Based on your history of moving goal posts and other forms of sophism I don't expect that you'll provide such a methodology or will agree to change your position should your hypothesis be falsified so I'm not interested in continuing the debate. I posted the parable for the benefit of other people reading the thread.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=83760.msg923827#msg923827

No goal posted moved.  All that happened is that you can't support your argument that anarchy is better than democracy.


Title: Re: A Way To Be Free - Robert LeFevre
Post by: asdf on May 29, 2012, 09:50:22 PM

The problem with Anarcho-capitalism is that it has no way to provide private property rights, justice or defence.


For the third time, you make the false assertion that the marketplace cannot provide the services provided by the government. Yet all these services have at some point in history been successfully provided by private enterprise. You can buy insurance to protect your person and property, and use arbitration firms for resolving disputes.

There is plenty of literature and media on this subject (only a google search away). You seem to be blissfully unaware of it and have no interest in leaning.

Just because you can't think of a solution to a market need does not justify using violence and theft to solve the problem. Your whole argument is one big is-ought fallacy: the government is what there is, therefore it's what there ought to be.


Title: Re: A Way To Be Free - Robert LeFevre
Post by: Hawker on May 30, 2012, 07:18:53 AM

The problem with Anarcho-capitalism is that it has no way to provide private property rights, justice or defence.


For the third time, you make the false assertion that the marketplace cannot provide the services provided by the government. Yet all these services have at some point in history been successfully provided by private enterprise. You can buy insurance to protect your person and property, and use arbitration firms for resolving disputes.

There is plenty of literature and media on this subject (only a google search away). You seem to be blissfully unaware of it and have no interest in leaning.

Just because you can't think of a solution to a market need does not justify using violence and theft to solve the problem. Your whole argument is one big is-ought fallacy: the government is what there is, therefore it's what there ought to be.

I've read it.  We've discussed it in these forums.  It always comes out that a system with a state is more efficient for property rights.  You have to remember that human organisations evolve in a competitive environment.  The reason we have states is that societies that didn't have states got crushed by conquest and slavery or simply ceased to exist as people attached themselves to the prosperous states.


Title: Re: A Way To Be Free - Robert LeFevre
Post by: hashman on May 30, 2012, 09:15:15 AM
Quote
I believe I have stated the position of my adversaries fairly.  There is invariably the same oversight.  If we have a government, it will be human beings who will be hired to restrain the evil in others.  Who are these persons who will be hired, either by popularity contests or by direct application?  They will be just as human and as much disposed toward evil as those to be restrained.

That is simply untrue. It fails at 3 levels:
- Whether its Genghiz Khan or Captain John Hawkins, human history shows that if a weak society exists, a large organised society will come along and enslave it.  Having your own democratic state is preferable to that.  Ask any Afghan or Iraqi...heck ask any Palestinian or Jew what happens when you are don't have an army that can protect you.

Ask who what?  What are you referring to as a large organized society and why?   


Question is very simple; what happens when you have the misfortune to live in a society without a state to protect you from bad guys?  Whether the answer you get is genocide, expropriation, slavery or what, its unpleasant compared to being in a society where you are free behind a decent military and judicial system.

Hmm what is a "decent military and judicial system" ?  Does this mean keeping a few percent of the population locked up with no rights?  Perhaps "decent military" refers to carte blanche for selected idiots to wreck their own lives and others, while robbing the citizenry?   
 
Can you think of some people who would tell you their misfortune to live in a society with a state to oppress them and maintain injustice?   



Title: Re: A Way To Be Free - Robert LeFevre
Post by: Hawker on May 30, 2012, 10:50:09 AM
...snip...

Question is very simple; what happens when you have the misfortune to live in a society without a state to protect you from bad guys?  Whether the answer you get is genocide, expropriation, slavery or what, its unpleasant compared to being in a society where you are free behind a decent military and judicial system.

Hmm what is a "decent military and judicial system" ?  Does this mean keeping a few percent of the population locked up with no rights?  Perhaps "decent military" refers to carte blanche for selected idiots to wreck their own lives and others, while robbing the citizenry?   
 
Can you think of some people who would tell you their misfortune to live in a society with a state to oppress them and maintain injustice?   



I assume you are talking about the US and its enthusiasm for incarceration and for invading countries in the Middle East? 

Can I answer your question with a question?  We all know that the excessive incarceration, the daft drug laws and the aggressive military reflect what Americans vote for.  Otherwise,  Ron Paul would be President. If you remove the checks and balances of a democratic state, won't you have the exact same thing but worse as it will be done on a freelance haphazard basis?


Title: Re: A Way To Be Free - Robert LeFevre
Post by: hashman on May 30, 2012, 03:24:10 PM
...snip...

Question is very simple; what happens when you have the misfortune to live in a society without a state to protect you from bad guys?  Whether the answer you get is genocide, expropriation, slavery or what, its unpleasant compared to being in a society where you are free behind a decent military and judicial system.

Hmm what is a "decent military and judicial system" ?  Does this mean keeping a few percent of the population locked up with no rights?  Perhaps "decent military" refers to carte blanche for selected idiots to wreck their own lives and others, while robbing the citizenry?   
 
Can you think of some people who would tell you their misfortune to live in a society with a state to oppress them and maintain injustice?   



I assume you are talking about the US and its enthusiasm for incarceration and for invading countries in the Middle East? 

Can I answer your question with a question?  We all know that the excessive incarceration, the daft drug laws and the aggressive military reflect what Americans vote for.  Otherwise,  Ron Paul would be President. If you remove the checks and balances of a democratic state, won't you have the exact same thing but worse as it will be done on a freelance haphazard basis?


You answered my question with a false statement, then a question :)  First, the phrase "democratic state" is sadly ambiguous now and may or may not refer to the politics championed by Democritus depending on how it is used.  Again I am reminded of recent tax regime in North America whose representatives use that language.  So there's your example.  Many checks and balances are long since removed (habeus corpus, military active against citizenry, encarceration, torture, control of trade by monopolies, mandatory income taxes, forbidden secession, etc.)  so, is it the exact same thing but worse?

Your point is an important one.  In the absence of government, one will arise.  It is only through intelligent application and architecture of checks and balances, i.e. not giving anybody an opportunity at all to abuse the system, that such abuse will end.         





Title: Re: A Way To Be Free - Robert LeFevre
Post by: Hawker on May 30, 2012, 04:04:47 PM
...snip...
You answered my question with a false statement, then a question :)  First, the phrase "democratic state" is sadly ambiguous now and may or may not refer to the politics championed by Democritus depending on how it is used.  Again I am reminded of recent tax regime in North America whose representatives use that language.  So there's your example.  Many checks and balances are long since removed (habeus corpus, military active against citizenry, encarceration, torture, control of trade by monopolies, mandatory income taxes, forbidden secession, etc.)  so, is it the exact same thing but worse?

Your point is an important one.  In the absence of government, one will arise.  It is only through intelligent application and architecture of checks and balances, i.e. not giving anybody an opportunity at all to abuse the system, that such abuse will end.          


"We all know that the excessive incarceration, the daft drug laws and the aggressive military reflect what Americans vote for.  " - you think that is a false statement?  Really?  Perhaps you need to go to a local bar and see what people think of European style jail sentences, drug legalisation and shrinking the military.

Totally agree with you about checks and balances and that you just have to keep watching them to keep abuse in check.


Title: Re: A Way To Be Free - Robert LeFevre
Post by: asdf on May 30, 2012, 10:38:40 PM

The problem with Anarcho-capitalism is that it has no way to provide private property rights, justice or defence.


For the third time, you make the false assertion that the marketplace cannot provide the services provided by the government. Yet all these services have at some point in history been successfully provided by private enterprise. You can buy insurance to protect your person and property, and use arbitration firms for resolving disputes.

There is plenty of literature and media on this subject (only a google search away). You seem to be blissfully unaware of it and have no interest in leaning.

Just because you can't think of a solution to a market need does not justify using violence and theft to solve the problem. Your whole argument is one big is-ought fallacy: the government is what there is, therefore it's what there ought to be.

I've read it.  We've discussed it in these forums.  It always comes out that a system with a state is more efficient for property rights.  You have to remember that human organisations evolve in a competitive environment.  The reason we have states is that societies that didn't have states got crushed by conquest and slavery or simply ceased to exist as people attached themselves to the prosperous states.

"a system with a state is more efficient for property rights" - i disagree. the state is immensely inefficient at everything it does, when compared with it's market based equivalent.

So you agree then, that a free society can produce defense services?

Is your only objection to a free society that it will be crushed and pillaged by non-free societies?

The real reason the state exists is because we believe it is a moral institution. As soon as society wakes up to the face that the state is nothing more than an opinion with a gun, it will be rejected.

You, for example, are pointing a gun at me and demanding I fund wars of aggression, against my will. Demanding I fund men in blue costumes to initiate force against me despite having infringed against no one. Demanding that I abide by an ever expanding set of laws which represent nothing more that the whims of some bureaucrats. Why? because you think it's better that way and therefore moral. Well, that's just your opinion. Can I disagree without having a gun pointed at me.


Title: Re: A Way To Be Free - Robert LeFevre
Post by: FirstAscent on May 31, 2012, 02:03:39 AM
"a system with a state is more efficient for property rights" - i disagree. the state is immensely inefficient at everything it does, when compared with it's market based equivalent.

There really is no such thing as property rights without a state.

Quote
The real reason the state exists is because we believe it is a moral institution.

Not really.

Quote
As soon as society wakes up to the face that the state is nothing more than an opinion with a gun, it will be rejected.

Explain.

Quote
You, for example, are pointing a gun at me and demanding I fund wars of aggression, against my will. Demanding I fund men in blue costumes to initiate force against me despite having infringed against no one. Demanding that I abide by an ever expanding set of laws which represent nothing more that the whims of some bureaucrats. Why? because you think it's better that way and therefore moral. Well, that's just your opinion. Can I disagree without having a gun pointed at me.

Your opinion is very cliched. Blue suits? Let me guess - you didn't make that term up, but instead have fallen victim to a meme.


Title: Re: A Way To Be Free - Robert LeFevre
Post by: Hawker on May 31, 2012, 06:47:58 AM

The problem with Anarcho-capitalism is that it has no way to provide private property rights, justice or defence.


For the third time, you make the false assertion that the marketplace cannot provide the services provided by the government. Yet all these services have at some point in history been successfully provided by private enterprise. You can buy insurance to protect your person and property, and use arbitration firms for resolving disputes.

There is plenty of literature and media on this subject (only a google search away). You seem to be blissfully unaware of it and have no interest in leaning.

Just because you can't think of a solution to a market need does not justify using violence and theft to solve the problem. Your whole argument is one big is-ought fallacy: the government is what there is, therefore it's what there ought to be.

I've read it.  We've discussed it in these forums.  It always comes out that a system with a state is more efficient for property rights.  You have to remember that human organisations evolve in a competitive environment.  The reason we have states is that societies that didn't have states got crushed by conquest and slavery or simply ceased to exist as people attached themselves to the prosperous states.

"a system with a state is more efficient for property rights" - i disagree. the state is immensely inefficient at everything it does, when compared with it's market based equivalent.

So you agree then, that a free society can produce defense services?

Is your only objection to a free society that it will be crushed and pillaged by non-free societies?

The real reason the state exists is because we believe it is a moral institution. As soon as society wakes up to the face that the state is nothing more than an opinion with a gun, it will be rejected.

You, for example, are pointing a gun at me and demanding I fund wars of aggression, against my will. Demanding I fund men in blue costumes to initiate force against me despite having infringed against no one. Demanding that I abide by an ever expanding set of laws which represent nothing more that the whims of some bureaucrats. Why? because you think it's better that way and therefore moral. Well, that's just your opinion. Can I disagree without having a gun pointed at me.

People do have a moral loyalty to their states, their religions and their football teams.  That's why a state can provide police and security more cheaply.

Your question about the men with guns misses the point about human nature.  All that stands between us and chaos is the rule of law.   Take away police protection and it takes an hour or so for looting to start.    Take away border protection and you get invaded, many lives will be lost and all property owners may be dispossessed.

Every human society has to live with this reality.  Given that mass violence is part of our nature, the only choice we have is whether we have men with guns that are tied up in rules and procedures and that work for us?


Title: Re: A Way To Be Free - Robert LeFevre
Post by: westkybitcoins on May 31, 2012, 08:10:42 AM
Are you saying we are not perfect?  And that if we are not perfect, then we have to give up our lives in the most peaceful prosperous societies in history?

My car isn't perfect.  On your logic, I should walk barefoot everywhere.
I'm saying that our current societies are incredibly violent, but by social convention we all pretend not to see the violence and agree not to talk about it.

+1


Title: Re: A Way To Be Free - Robert LeFevre
Post by: westkybitcoins on May 31, 2012, 08:30:21 AM
People do have a moral loyalty to their states, their religions and their football teams.  That's why a state can provide police and security more cheaply.

Your question about the men with guns misses the point about human nature.  All that stands between us and chaos is the rule of law.   Take away police protection and it takes an hour or so for looting to start.    Take away border protection and you get invaded, many lives will be lost and all property owners may be dispossessed.

Every human society has to live with this reality.  Given that mass violence is part of our nature, the only choice we have is whether we have men with guns that are tied up in rules and procedures and that work for us?

Saying they work for us is pretty much a joke when they force us to provide them their paychecks.

And given that, it becomes clear why, over time, governments act less and less as if they're "tied up" with any sort of limitations.

Yet you want to take a group of people with mass violence as part of their nature, and give them a socially-accepted monopoly on initiating violence.

Considering the millions that governments, even "democratic" governments have killed (especially in the 20th century) and continue to kill, I have a hard time seeing why you feel that a society without a centralized nation-state would be more dangerous overall than one without.


Title: Re: A Way To Be Free - Robert LeFevre
Post by: Hawker on May 31, 2012, 08:55:49 AM
People do have a moral loyalty to their states, their religions and their football teams.  That's why a state can provide police and security more cheaply.

Your question about the men with guns misses the point about human nature.  All that stands between us and chaos is the rule of law.   Take away police protection and it takes an hour or so for looting to start.    Take away border protection and you get invaded, many lives will be lost and all property owners may be dispossessed.

Every human society has to live with this reality.  Given that mass violence is part of our nature, the only choice we have is whether we have men with guns that are tied up in rules and procedures and that work for us?

Saying they work for us is pretty much a joke when they force us to provide them their paychecks.

And given that, it becomes clear why, over time, governments act less and less as if they're "tied up" with any sort of limitations.

Yet you want to take a group of people with mass violence as part of their nature, and give them a socially-accepted monopoly on initiating violence.

Considering the millions that governments, even "democratic" governments have killed (especially in the 20th century) and continue to kill, I have a hard time seeing why you feel that a society without a centralized nation-state would be more dangerous overall than one without.

Police and soldiers are employees.  You choose to hire them and you choose what to pay them.

I agree that societies with centralised nation states are far more dangerous than those with no state.  That is why I prefer to live in one with separation of powers, the rule of law and a decent border.  The alternative is that you live at the mercy of foreign states.  This is what you get if you don't have a strong state to defend you: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/may/31/thousands-flee-extreme-violence-congo

Which do you choose?


Title: Re: A Way To Be Free - Robert LeFevre
Post by: hashman on May 31, 2012, 10:16:00 AM
[quote author=Hawker link=topic=83760.msg930614#msg930614 date=1338393887

"We all know that the excessive incarceration, the daft drug laws and the aggressive military reflect what Americans vote for.  " - you think that is a false statement?  Really?  Perhaps you need to go to a local bar and see what people think of European style jail sentences, drug legalisation and shrinking the military.

Totally agree with you about checks and balances and that you just have to keep watching them to keep abuse in check.

[/quote]


I really do think its false, and most of my evidence comes from local bars and a lot of travel as opposed to popular media which often suggests otherwise.  Drug legalisation is championed by religious leaders, policemen, economists, lawyers, doctors, basically anybody who bothers to think about it and does not feel they are personally profiting from the corruption prohibition enables.  Even the military thinks we should be shrinking the military.  And I don't know many people proud of having the worst incarceration rate on the planet.   

Constant vigilance..  how to start that again? 


Title: Re: A Way To Be Free - Robert LeFevre
Post by: memvola on May 31, 2012, 11:59:28 AM
Question is very simple; what happens when you have the misfortune to live in a society without a state to protect you from bad guys?  Whether the answer you get is genocide, expropriation, slavery or what, its unpleasant compared to being in a society where you are free behind a decent military and judicial system.

I don't get what you mean in general. In most circumstances, the suffering you describe comes upon people who don't assimilate (e.g. genocide) or resist (violent invasion), or they happen regardless of you living under military protection (expropriation, slavery). It's either you don't want to live under a certain power, or the power you live under can't protect you (you're safe only if both aren't the case). But why don't you want to live that way but this?

There's nothing separating bad guys from the good guys objectively. They are the good guys because you belong. You belong because you've already assimilated. There's no "generic" difference between accepting one over another.

Now, I'm sure ants think colonies are the best. Regardless of whether anarchy might work, I merely object to the importance of your dichotomy. If I will let a state indoctrinate my kids anyway, I really don't have strong opinions about which. They operate with similar principles anyway. Rules appear to be radically different, but they are usually reflections of same things.

(minor edit for clarification)


Title: Re: A Way To Be Free - Robert LeFevre
Post by: Hawker on May 31, 2012, 01:42:20 PM
Question is very simple; what happens when you have the misfortune to live in a society without a state to protect you from bad guys?  Whether the answer you get is genocide, expropriation, slavery or what, its unpleasant compared to being in a society where you are free behind a decent military and judicial system.

I don't get what you mean in general. In most circumstances, the suffering you describe comes upon people who don't assimilate (e.g. genocide) or resist (violent invasion), or they happen regardless of you living under military protection (expropriation, slavery). It's either you don't want to live under a certain power, or the power you live under can't protect you (you're safe only if both aren't the case). But why don't you want to live that way but this?

There's nothing separating bad guys from the good guys objectively. They are the good guys because you belong. You belong because you've already assimilated. There's no "generic" difference between accepting one over another.

Now, I'm sure ants think colonies are the best. Regardless of whether anarchy might work, I merely object to the importance of your dichotomy. If I will let a state indoctrinate my kids anyway, I really don't have strong opinions about which. They operate with similar principles anyway. Rules appear to be radically different, but they are usually reflections of same things.

(minor edit for clarification)

As you say, you can't separate the good guys from the bad guys.  Perhaps there is no difference except that some paid by you and some are paid by another nation. 

But you can put in place things like separation of powers and a bill of rights so that all guys with guns have to justify themselves before taking your property from you.  If you do that, you and your community can invest in your properties and you can create a vibrant economy.  If you don't have a well run state, you can't do that so you are condemned to poverty and oppression.



Title: Re: A Way To Be Free - Robert LeFevre
Post by: hazek on May 31, 2012, 02:09:41 PM
What separation of powers are you talking about!? Just because some words were written on a piece of paper not signed by anyone does not separation of powers make, all it is is PR, a mere pretense to obscure the fact that a few people are using violence and the threat of violence to rule over the rest.

The only actual separation of powers can happen when there is no power to begin with, just a voluntary private contract between two or more consenting parties.




And before you make a delusional comeback comment think about how you're going to explain a mountain high of violations of this pretense of separation of powers, especially in those cases when separation of powers matters the most like all the unilaterally started and undeclared invading wars.

Quote
"None are more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believe they are free."
    - Johann Wolfgang von Goethe


Title: Re: A Way To Be Free - Robert LeFevre
Post by: Hawker on May 31, 2012, 03:07:18 PM
What separation of powers are you talking about!? Just because some words were written on a piece of paper not signed by anyone does not separation of powers make, all it is is PR, a mere pretense to obscure the fact that a few people are using violence and the threat of violence to rule over the rest.

The only actual separation of powers can happen when there is no power to begin with, just a voluntary private contract between two or more consenting parties.




And before you make a delusional comeback comment think about how you're going to explain a mountain high of violations of this pretense of separation of powers, especially in those cases when separation of powers matters the most like all the unilaterally started and undeclared invading wars.

Quote
"None are more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believe they are free."
    - Johann Wolfgang von Goethe

Separation of powers is where you have law making, law enforcement and legal arbitration done in 3 separate organisations.  Without it, you end up with a single organisation that can make its own rules, enforce them against and adjudicate in its own favour if you disagree.

If you live in a society without this split, you live in a very unpleasant place and you have no real rights. 

Your Goethe quote shows you are still making the same mistake of saying that if you don't live in a perfect state, then the state you live in needs to be abolished.  Its like saying that you want people to walk around barefoot because cars aren't perfect.  What you need to do is offer something better.


Title: Re: A Way To Be Free - Robert LeFevre
Post by: justusranvier on May 31, 2012, 04:21:21 PM
What you need to do is offer something better.
Not at all.

The abolitionists declared that slavery must be ended because the ownership of human beings is immoral. Figuring out a better way of handling agricultural labor requirements was not a prerequisite for abolishing slavery.

Governing people via the implicit or explicit threat of violence is immoral therefore people should find other ways of solving their problems.


Title: Re: A Way To Be Free - Robert LeFevre
Post by: westkybitcoins on May 31, 2012, 04:43:51 PM
People do have a moral loyalty to their states, their religions and their football teams.  That's why a state can provide police and security more cheaply.

Your question about the men with guns misses the point about human nature.  All that stands between us and chaos is the rule of law.   Take away police protection and it takes an hour or so for looting to start.    Take away border protection and you get invaded, many lives will be lost and all property owners may be dispossessed.

Every human society has to live with this reality.  Given that mass violence is part of our nature, the only choice we have is whether we have men with guns that are tied up in rules and procedures and that work for us?

Saying they work for us is pretty much a joke when they force us to provide them their paychecks.

And given that, it becomes clear why, over time, governments act less and less as if they're "tied up" with any sort of limitations.

Yet you want to take a group of people with mass violence as part of their nature, and give them a socially-accepted monopoly on initiating violence.

Considering the millions that governments, even "democratic" governments have killed (especially in the 20th century) and continue to kill, I have a hard time seeing why you feel that a society without a centralized nation-state would be more dangerous overall than one without.

Police and soldiers are employees.  You choose to hire them and you choose what to pay them.

But that's just not true, either on an individual level or on a societal level.

If I see that the police in my city are corrupt, and specifically that Officers Adams, Baker and Crowley are guilty of abusing their powers and hurting innocent people, I can't decide to fire them, or to start paying them $0. Yes, I could try to convince their bosses to do so, but the point is, it's not my decision as an individual.

And even if the entire society wants them gone, who's going to make it happen? As long as the people making the decisions an the people wielding the guns act in accord and protect each other, nothing can be done. In the U.S., over 90% of the populace was against the first round of bank bailouts. The rulers knew this. They ignored it, and nothing has happened to them. Even the voting is gamed. It may have been better in the past, and it may be better in other countries, but only because the ruling class wasn't inclined to be so brazen about flaunting their control, and the lack of the people's control. In any society, if the ruling class decides to stop pretending that the people have control, then the people will find out pretty quickly that they don't.


Quote
I agree that societies with centralised nation states are far more dangerous than those with no state.  That is why I prefer to live in one with separation of powers, the rule of law and a decent border.  The alternative is that you live at the mercy of foreign states.  This is what you get if you don't have a strong state to defend you: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/may/31/thousands-flee-extreme-violence-congo

Which do you choose?

If I were to have a true choice, it wouldn't be from the alternatives you offer... I'd rather choose a society with no government, but with people choosing voluntary protection services (or self-protection,) and with enough wealth to defend themselves from foreign states too. If Afgahnistan can do it, then a government-less U.S. could easily repel foreign states, and likely several other advanced nations could too.

Now, I honestly doubt that'll ever materialize in my lifetime, or anytime in the near future, but it's the moral ideal, and the most practically effective in terms of providing security and allowing for prosperity, so of course I try to choose options that lead closer to that ideal.

Given an already advanced and wealthy nation, and the option of continuing its government or disbanding it (or at least disbanding the higher levels,) I'll always opt for the latter. And while I believe it'll lead to greater personal benefit for me, that's not why I'd choose it... I'd choose it because I believe that that is the moral option, because I believe that initiating force against someone who has not done so is wrong, and is one of the greater wrongs that mankind is capable of.


Title: Re: A Way To Be Free - Robert LeFevre
Post by: Hawker on May 31, 2012, 05:19:24 PM
...snipping as the posts have gotten so damn long...

If I were to have a true choice, it wouldn't be from the alternatives you offer... I'd rather choose a society with no government, but with people choosing voluntary protection services (or self-protection,) and with enough wealth to defend themselves from foreign states too. If Afgahnistan can do it, then a government-less U.S. could easily repel foreign states, and likely several other advanced nations could too.

Now, I honestly doubt that'll ever materialize in my lifetime, or anytime in the near future, but it's the moral ideal, and the most practically effective in terms of providing security and allowing for prosperity, so of course I try to choose options that lead closer to that ideal.

Given an already advanced and wealthy nation, and the option of continuing its government or disbanding it (or at least disbanding the higher levels,) I'll always opt for the latter. And while I believe it'll lead to greater personal benefit for me, that's not why I'd choose it... I'd choose it because I believe that that is the moral option, because I believe that initiating force against someone who has not done so is wrong, and is one of the greater wrongs that mankind is capable of.


I grew up in an environment where people were being snatched off the street and killed for having the wrong religion so I believe allowing the bad guys to initiate force is bad.  We know that if you don't have police and an army in control of your street, bad stuff will happen.  Its immoral to allow that.

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

By the way, these guys were citizen justice at its finest.  Some of their victims were Protestants but their tongues were destroyed with pliers before they got a chance to say so and then they were tortured to death.  That's what happens when you don't have police, courts and the rule of law.


Title: Re: A Way To Be Free - Robert LeFevre
Post by: justusranvier on May 31, 2012, 05:23:30 PM
I grew up in an environment where people were being snatched off the street and killed for having the wrong religion so I believe allowing the bad guys to initiate force is bad.  We know that if you don't have police and an army in control of your street, bad stuff will happen.  Its immoral to allow that.
You can't legitimately divide human beings into two categories and say it's immoral for the "bad guys" to initiate force while at the same time it's virtuous for the "good guys" to initiate force.

What's wrong for one person is wrong for everybody.


Title: Re: A Way To Be Free - Robert LeFevre
Post by: Hawker on May 31, 2012, 06:32:40 PM
I grew up in an environment where people were being snatched off the street and killed for having the wrong religion so I believe allowing the bad guys to initiate force is bad.  We know that if you don't have police and an army in control of your street, bad stuff will happen.  Its immoral to allow that.
You can't legitimately divide human beings into two categories and say it's immoral for the "bad guys" to initiate force while at the same time it's virtuous for the "good guys" to initiate force.

What's wrong for one person is wrong for everybody.

What an absurd statement.  

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

It was wrong to abduct her.  When she was returned to her family, the Garridos were arrested/abducted and they remain abducted/imprisoned.  That is a good thing.

Really, you need to think things through before posting them.


Title: Re: A Way To Be Free - Robert LeFevre
Post by: justusranvier on May 31, 2012, 06:39:19 PM
That is a good thing.
How do you know? What is your standard of deciding what is a "good thing" and what is a "bad thing" and on what basis should that standard be considered universal instead of your mere personal opinion?

Really, you need to think things through before posting them.
It's been my experience that people who throw around statements like this are generally putting up a smoke screen because they themselves have not really thought through their own positions but are merely parroting back the accumulated opinions of others. I hope to be disappointed in this case but so far it's looking like a long shot.


Title: Re: A Way To Be Free - Robert LeFevre
Post by: Hawker on May 31, 2012, 06:44:07 PM
That is a good thing.
How do you know? What is your standard of deciding what is a "good thing" and what is a "bad thing" and on what basis should that standard be considered universal instead of your mere personal opinion?

Really, you need to think things through before posting them.
It's been my experience that people who throw around statements like this are generally putting up a smoke screen because they themselves have not really thought through their own positions but are merely parroting back the accumulated opinions of others. I hope to be disappointed in this case but so far it's looking like a long shot.

In the Dugard case, I'm going to disappoint you.  I think it was a bad thing to kidnap and rape her and a good thing the guy who did it is locked up.  Its clear why you think police and a defense force isn't needed.  I have to say I am glad I don't live in the type of society you espouse.


Title: Re: A Way To Be Free - Robert LeFevre
Post by: justusranvier on May 31, 2012, 06:55:47 PM
In the Dugard case, I'm going to disappoint you.  I think it was a bad thing to kidnap and rape her and a good thing the guy who did it is locked up.  Its clear why you think police and a defense force isn't needed.  I have to say I am glad I don't live in the type of society you espouse.
I understand that you have an opinion; you already told me that.

What I'm asking for is why I your opinion should be universally accepted, especially when we're talking about the justification for inflicting the power of the state on millions of people. Even if your opinion is in fact the best possible way to organize society don't you think everyone who is forced to go along with it deserves a better explanation for why they should than "This is what Hawker thinks is best"?


Title: Re: A Way To Be Free - Robert LeFevre
Post by: hazek on May 31, 2012, 06:58:37 PM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kidnapping_of_Jaycee_Lee_Dugard

It was wrong to abduct her.  When she was returned to her family, the Garridos were arrested/abducted and they remain abducted/imprisoned.  That is a good thing.

Really? Says who? Why is it a good thing? If I disagree why am I forced to pay for it anyway?

Really, you need to think things through before posting them.

No, it's you who needs to think things through a bit more.

Abduction/imprisonment is wrong no matter who does it and I reject your mere statement that this is how we can protect ourselves from dangerous people. Besides it's just stupid and way too costly and inefficient.

I have a better idea: deal with people like that through ostracization where you simply refuse to do any kind of business with those who ignore certain rules or principles and if they can't buy food, clothing or shelter and if private property is protected by private security then the problem is fixed and they can live their barbaric lives in the wilderness where they wont bother anyone. Of course cognitive dissonance prevents such a thought even crossing your know it all mind let alone it being thoroughly considered by you.


Title: Re: A Way To Be Free - Robert LeFevre
Post by: Hawker on May 31, 2012, 07:24:25 PM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kidnapping_of_Jaycee_Lee_Dugard

It was wrong to abduct her.  When she was returned to her family, the Garridos were arrested/abducted and they remain abducted/imprisoned.  That is a good thing.

Really? Says who? Why is it a good thing? If I disagree why am I forced to pay for it anyway?

...snip...

If you feel its wrong to arrest the kidnappers and rapist of Jaycee Dugard, then your objection to a police force makes perfect sense.  I know you admire LeFevre and he believed it was wrong to even damage the ropes of your kidnapper if you were abducted.



Title: Re: A Way To Be Free - Robert LeFevre
Post by: hazek on May 31, 2012, 07:27:39 PM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kidnapping_of_Jaycee_Lee_Dugard

It was wrong to abduct her.  When she was returned to her family, the Garridos were arrested/abducted and they remain abducted/imprisoned.  That is a good thing.

Really? Says who? Why is it a good thing? If I disagree why am I forced to pay for it anyway?

Really, you need to think things through before posting them.

No, it's you who needs to think things through a bit more.

Abduction/imprisonment is wrong no matter who does it and I reject your mere statement that this is how we can protect ourselves from dangerous people. Besides it's just stupid and way too costly and inefficient.

I have a better idea: deal with people like that through ostracization where you simply refuse to do any kind of business with those who ignore certain rules or principles and if they can't buy food, clothing or shelter and if private property is protected by private security then the problem is fixed and they can live their barbaric lives in the wilderness where they wont bother anyone. Of course cognitive dissonance prevents such a thought even crossing your know it all mind let alone it being thoroughly considered by you.

If you feel its wrong to arrest the kidnappers and rapist of Jaycee Dugard, then your objection to a police force makes perfect sense.  I know you admire LeFevre and he believed it was wrong to even damage the ropes of your kidnapper if you were abducted.

Stop assuming stuff about me. I don't agree with everything LeFevre believed, just what I posted in my OP. I believe self defense is not only good it is absolutely necessary if one wants a society that is free to maximize it's potential. To put in a way you'll understand, if I were to be kidnapped I wouldn't only cut the ropes but I'd do what ever it took to escape and defend my freedom.


Title: Re: A Way To Be Free - Robert LeFevre
Post by: Hawker on May 31, 2012, 07:30:38 PM
In the Dugard case, I'm going to disappoint you.  I think it was a bad thing to kidnap and rape her and a good thing the guy who did it is locked up.  Its clear why you think police and a defense force isn't needed.  I have to say I am glad I don't live in the type of society you espouse.
I understand that you have an opinion; you already told me that.

What I'm asking for is why I your opinion should be universally accepted, especially when we're talking about the justification for inflicting the power of the state on millions of people. Even if your opinion is in fact the best possible way to organize society don't you think everyone who is forced to go along with it deserves a better explanation for why they should than "This is what Hawker thinks is best"?

We already have societies that are rich and where we live in comfort and security.  If you want to take that away, I'm afraid the burden is on you to justify the change.  Saying that you think its wrong to arrest criminals is sort of silly - the alternative is to kill people without trial.  Arrest and trial is better.


Title: Re: A Way To Be Free - Robert LeFevre
Post by: Hawker on May 31, 2012, 07:31:56 PM
...snip...
Stop assuming stuff about me. I don't agree with everything LeFevre believed, just what I posted in my OP. I believe self defense is not only good it is absolutely necessary if one wants a society that is free to maximize it's potential. To put in a way you'll understand, if I were to be kidnapped I wouldn't only cut the ropes but I'd do what ever it took to escape and defend my freedom.

Great :D we have common ground.

What if you knew in advance that you were going to be kidnapped?  Would you feel it OK to physically prevent that abduction?


Title: Re: A Way To Be Free - Robert LeFevre
Post by: hazek on May 31, 2012, 07:34:51 PM
Absolutely.


Title: Re: A Way To Be Free - Robert LeFevre
Post by: hazek on May 31, 2012, 07:36:17 PM
We already have societies that are rich and where we live in comfort and security.

Really? You must be joking.


Title: Re: A Way To Be Free - Robert LeFevre
Post by: memvola on May 31, 2012, 07:37:17 PM
Saying that you think its wrong to arrest criminals is sort of silly - the alternative is to kill people without trial.  Arrest and trial is better.

You lock them in, he locks them out, I don't see a huge difference. It's a community decision either way. I think not giving explicit authority of violence to a single entity is healthier for the community though. There would be more confrontation within the community, hence more progress. There may be more violence between peers but overall violence would be reduced. How do we prove this? No idea.


Title: Re: A Way To Be Free - Robert LeFevre
Post by: Hawker on May 31, 2012, 07:38:45 PM
Absolutely.

We agree again.  I think the difference between us is that I have a far lower opinion of my fellowman than you.

My experience has been that if we don't have law, police, courts and an army, we will be kidnapped and our property taken from us.  We may be killed just because we have the wrong religion or skin colour.

That's why we need the rule of law and a sound defence.


Title: Re: A Way To Be Free - Robert LeFevre
Post by: hazek on May 31, 2012, 07:42:24 PM
Absolutely.

We agree again.  I think the difference between us is that I have a far lower opinion of my fellowman than you.

My experience has been that if we don't have law, police, courts and an army, we will be kidnapped and our property taken from us.  We may be killed just because we have the wrong religion or skin colour.

That's why we need the rule of law and a sound defence.

I don't disagree except in my case the rule of law is the law between two consenting parties via contract and sound defense is the personal use of best weapons available for personal protection or a private company offering the service of protection with the best weapons available.


Title: Re: A Way To Be Free - Robert LeFevre
Post by: Hawker on May 31, 2012, 07:42:38 PM
We already have societies that are rich and where we live in comfort and security.

Really? You must be joking.

Not joking.  I go to China for business.  Now thats a country where you see families eating out of dustbins in the "rich" cities like Shenzhen.

I grew up in Ireland and have lived in the UK and the US.  Rich comfortable countries where most people live in security.



Title: Re: A Way To Be Free - Robert LeFevre
Post by: hazek on May 31, 2012, 07:44:44 PM
We already have societies that are rich and where we live in comfort and security.

Really? You must be joking.

Not joking.  I go to China for business.  Now thats a country where you see families eating out of dustbins in the "rich" cities like Shenzhen.

I grew up in Ireland and have lived in the UK and the US.  Rich comfortable countries where most people live in security.

Ooooohh you meant relatively rich and secure, like not so poor to be forced to eat out of a trashcan or not so insecure that a walk in the street would get you instantly shot or blown up, I get it. I guess my standards for those terms are simply way way higher than yours.

Oh and I reject your mere statement the really poor in the countries you cites are any better of than the poor in the other countries or secure for that matter.


Title: Re: A Way To Be Free - Robert LeFevre
Post by: Hawker on May 31, 2012, 07:54:09 PM
We already have societies that are rich and where we live in comfort and security.

Really? You must be joking.

Not joking.  I go to China for business.  Now thats a country where you see families eating out of dustbins in the "rich" cities like Shenzhen.

I grew up in Ireland and have lived in the UK and the US.  Rich comfortable countries where most people live in security.

Ooooohh you meant relatively rich and secure, like not so poor to be forced to eat out of a trashcan or not so insecure that a walk in the street would get you instantly shot or blown up, I get it. I guess my standards for those terms are simply way way higher than yours.

Oh and I reject your mere statement the really poor in the countries you cites are any better of than the poor in the other countries or secure for that matter.

All things are relative.  Our societies are rich and secure compared to China.  China is rich and secure compared to the Congo. 

Part of the reason our societies are rich and secure is that we have government institutions that facilitate the free market.

There is a good book on this if you have time to spare: http://whynationsfail.com/summary/


Title: Re: A Way To Be Free - Robert LeFevre
Post by: hazek on May 31, 2012, 08:02:43 PM
Bwahahahaha listen to yourself..  ::)

Sir, I know you think you do but you don't know how to think logically correctly and you'll have to excuse me but I'm going to stop wasting my time with you.


Title: Re: A Way To Be Free - Robert LeFevre
Post by: Hawker on May 31, 2012, 08:10:03 PM
Bwahahahaha listen to yourself..  ::)

Sir, I know you think you do but you don't know how to think logically correctly and you'll have to excuse me but I'm going to stop wasting my time with you.

Odd that you you can't point to a logical error.  Almost like your whole "no state needed" thing falls apart under examination isn't it?

Best stop wasting your time.


Title: Re: A Way To Be Free - Robert LeFevre
Post by: ribuck on May 31, 2012, 08:18:37 PM
I think the difference between us is that I have a far lower opinion of my fellowman than you.
I've often noticed that apologists for the state have low opinions of their fellowmen. Contempt, even.

The old saying of "it takes one to know one" springs to mind.

Those who cherish freedom and voluntaryism, on the other hand, tend to respect their fellowmen and can see the great potential of human nature if unchained.


Title: Re: A Way To Be Free - Robert LeFevre
Post by: Hawker on May 31, 2012, 08:22:39 PM
I think the difference between us is that I have a far lower opinion of my fellowman than you.
I've often noticed that apologists for the state have low opinions of their fellowmen. Contempt, even.

The old saying of "it takes one to know one" springs to mind.

Those who cherish freedom and voluntaryism, on the other hand, tend to respect their fellowmen and can see the great potential of human nature if unchained.

There is a reason why countries with institutions that have checks and balances do better than ones that offer absolute power :P


Title: Re: A Way To Be Free - Robert LeFevre
Post by: hazek on May 31, 2012, 08:26:43 PM
I think the difference between us is that I have a far lower opinion of my fellowman than you.
I've often noticed that apologists for the state have low opinions of their fellowmen. Contempt, even.

The old saying of "it takes one to know one" springs to mind.

Those who cherish freedom and voluntaryism, on the other hand, tend to respect their fellowmen and can see the great potential of human nature if unchained.

There is a reason why countries with institutions that have checks and balances do better than ones that offer absolute power :P

So you wont say I didn't show any evidence.. ^ is a perfect example of how you don't know how to think logically correctly: correlation does not equal causation http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Correlation_does_not_equal_causation


Title: Re: A Way To Be Free - Robert LeFevre
Post by: Hawker on May 31, 2012, 08:29:00 PM
I think the difference between us is that I have a far lower opinion of my fellowman than you.
I've often noticed that apologists for the state have low opinions of their fellowmen. Contempt, even.

The old saying of "it takes one to know one" springs to mind.

Those who cherish freedom and voluntaryism, on the other hand, tend to respect their fellowmen and can see the great potential of human nature if unchained.

There is a reason why countries with institutions that have checks and balances do better than ones that offer absolute power :P

A perfect example of how you don't know how to think logically correctly, correlation does not equal causation.

Actually the failure is yours there.  Institutions with checks and balances are better protected from the weaknesses of individuals.


Title: Re: A Way To Be Free - Robert LeFevre
Post by: hazek on May 31, 2012, 08:30:01 PM
I think the difference between us is that I have a far lower opinion of my fellowman than you.
I've often noticed that apologists for the state have low opinions of their fellowmen. Contempt, even.

The old saying of "it takes one to know one" springs to mind.

Those who cherish freedom and voluntaryism, on the other hand, tend to respect their fellowmen and can see the great potential of human nature if unchained.

There is a reason why countries with institutions that have checks and balances do better than ones that offer absolute power :P

So you wont say I didn't show any evidence.. ^ is a perfect example of how you don't know how to think logically correctly: correlation does not equal causation http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Correlation_does_not_equal_causation

Actually the failure is yours there.  Institutions with checks and balances are better protected from the weaknesses of individuals.  That is not a statement of causation.

No? What is it then if not a statement of causation?  ::)

Let me break your statement down so you'll better see it: "If people are organized in an institution with checks and balances then they are better protected from their on individual weaknesses."


Title: Re: A Way To Be Free - Robert LeFevre
Post by: Hawker on May 31, 2012, 08:32:25 PM
I think the difference between us is that I have a far lower opinion of my fellowman than you.
I've often noticed that apologists for the state have low opinions of their fellowmen. Contempt, even.

The old saying of "it takes one to know one" springs to mind.

Those who cherish freedom and voluntaryism, on the other hand, tend to respect their fellowmen and can see the great potential of human nature if unchained.

There is a reason why countries with institutions that have checks and balances do better than ones that offer absolute power :P

A perfect example of how you don't know how to think logically correctly, correlation does not equal causation.

Actually the failure is yours there.  Institutions with checks and balances are better protected from the weaknesses of individuals.  That is not a statement of causation.

No? What is it then if not a statement of causation?  ::)

Its a statement that institutions that have checks and balances are better suited to the environment of human society and so do better.


Title: Re: A Way To Be Free - Robert LeFevre
Post by: ribuck on May 31, 2012, 08:33:25 PM
There is a reason why countries with institutions that have checks and balances do better than ones that offer absolute power :P
Of course! But even in those countries, there is a common source of funding for the legislature, administration and judiciary: taxation.

Removing forceful taxation from the equation would add a further check (because those bodies would not be able to grow larger than the size the population wishes to fund), and would improve the balance (by changing it from a three-way to a four-way split of power: legislature, administration, judiciary, and citizens).


Title: Re: A Way To Be Free - Robert LeFevre
Post by: hazek on May 31, 2012, 08:35:07 PM
I think the difference between us is that I have a far lower opinion of my fellowman than you.
I've often noticed that apologists for the state have low opinions of their fellowmen. Contempt, even.

The old saying of "it takes one to know one" springs to mind.

Those who cherish freedom and voluntaryism, on the other hand, tend to respect their fellowmen and can see the great potential of human nature if unchained.

There is a reason why countries with institutions that have checks and balances do better than ones that offer absolute power :P

A perfect example of how you don't know how to think logically correctly, correlation does not equal causation.

Actually the failure is yours there.  Institutions with checks and balances are better protected from the weaknesses of individuals.  That is not a statement of causation.

No? What is it then if not a statement of causation?  ::)

Let me break your statement down so you'll better see it: "If people are organized in an institution with checks and balances then they are better protected from their on individual weaknesses."

Its a statement that institutions that have checks and balances are better suited to the environment of human society and so do better.

And what is this statement if not one of causation?  ::)


Title: Re: A Way To Be Free - Robert LeFevre
Post by: Hawker on May 31, 2012, 08:35:16 PM
There is a reason why countries with institutions that have checks and balances do better than ones that offer absolute power :P
Of course! But even in those countries, there is a common source of funding for the legislature, administration and judiciary: taxation.

Removing forceful taxation from the equation would add a further check (because those bodies would not be able to grow larger than the size the population wishes to fund), and would improve the balance (by changing it from a three-way to a four-way split of power: legislature, administration, judiciary, and citizens).

Remove taxation and you have to find another way to pay for your legislature, your administration and judiciary.  What would that be?  


Title: Re: A Way To Be Free - Robert LeFevre
Post by: hazek on May 31, 2012, 08:36:22 PM
What would that be?  

Like any other service provided by a market regulated strictly by market consumers (i.e. a free market): A voluntary contract.


Title: Re: A Way To Be Free - Robert LeFevre
Post by: Nekrobios on May 31, 2012, 08:37:18 PM
I think the difference between us is that I have a far lower opinion of my fellowman than you.
I've often noticed that apologists for the state have low opinions of their fellowmen. Contempt, even.

The old saying of "it takes one to know one" springs to mind.

Those who cherish freedom and voluntaryism, on the other hand, tend to respect their fellowmen and can see the great potential of human nature if unchained.
I’m with Hawker. Since humans are animals, violence, theft and even rape is inherent.

I cannot imagine privatized law, justice and execution not ending in terrible disasters caused by faulty incentives (it’s all about who pays best).

The only thing that would change my mind is an anarchist society that actually ends up being prosperous and peaceful. And of course doesn’t collapse within years because a state forms. This has never happened in history, so the burden is on the anarchists to show it can work and most importantly, be sustained.


Title: Re: A Way To Be Free - Robert LeFevre
Post by: Hawker on May 31, 2012, 08:42:48 PM
What would that be?  

Like any other service provided by a market regulated strictly by market consumers (i.e. a free market): A voluntary contract.

You can't have a market regulated by consumers as you need legal enforcement of contracts.  That means a state with a court system and a system of contract law.

Criminal law has to be the same for everyone and there can't be a way to opt out of it or so renegotiate it.

Property law for things like inheritance and divorce is much the same.  You can't have one person saying he is a Muslim and that his wife gets nothing in a divorce while his wife says he wants 50% of the family assets.

None of this can be done efficiently by voluntary contract.



Title: Re: A Way To Be Free - Robert LeFevre
Post by: hazek on May 31, 2012, 08:46:05 PM
What would that be?  

Like any other service provided by a market regulated strictly by market consumers (i.e. a free market): A voluntary contract.

You can't have a market regulated by consumers as you need legal enforcement of contracts.  That means a state with a court system and a system of contract law.

Criminal law has to be the same for everyone and there can't be a way to opt out of it or so renegotiate it.

Property law for things like inheritance and divorce is much the same.  You can't have one person saying he is a Muslim and that his wife gets nothing in a divorce while his wife says he wants 50% of the family assets.

None of this can be done efficiently by voluntary contract.



You truly are hopeless, I'm done with you.


Title: Re: A Way To Be Free - Robert LeFevre
Post by: Hawker on May 31, 2012, 08:54:28 PM
What would that be?  

Like any other service provided by a market regulated strictly by market consumers (i.e. a free market): A voluntary contract.

You can't have a market regulated by consumers as you need legal enforcement of contracts.  That means a state with a court system and a system of contract law.

Criminal law has to be the same for everyone and there can't be a way to opt out of it or so renegotiate it.

Property law for things like inheritance and divorce is much the same.  You can't have one person saying he is a Muslim and that his wife gets nothing in a divorce while his wife says he wants 50% of the family assets.

None of this can be done efficiently by voluntary contract.



You truly are hopeless, I'm done with you.

Whenever the weakness of your own position is pointed out, you announce "slave I am done with you"

lol


Title: Re: A Way To Be Free - Robert LeFevre
Post by: ribuck on May 31, 2012, 08:58:33 PM
Remove taxation and you have to find another way to pay for your legislature, your administration and judiciary.  What would that be?  
Those who value the services can pay for them. If the services deliver value, they will be funded. If they don't, they won't be.

You keep telling us about all these people who want a state so that it can force them to do what is "good" for them. Surely they will voluntarily pay for it?


Title: Re: A Way To Be Free - Robert LeFevre
Post by: Hawker on May 31, 2012, 09:05:23 PM
Remove taxation and you have to find another way to pay for your legislature, your administration and judiciary.  What would that be?  
Those who value the services can pay for them. If the services deliver value, they will be funded. If they don't, they won't be.

You keep telling us about all these people who want a state so that it can force them to do what is "good" for them. Surely they will voluntarily pay for it?

Lets go back to the Jaycee Dugard case: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kidnapping_of_Jaycee_Lee_Dugard

Who should pay for the police investigation?  Her family?  Jaycee herself?  Is that your idea of voluntary payment?


Title: Re: A Way To Be Free - Robert LeFevre
Post by: westkybitcoins on May 31, 2012, 09:22:07 PM
...snipping as the posts have gotten so damn long...

If I were to have a true choice, it wouldn't be from the alternatives you offer... I'd rather choose a society with no government, but with people choosing voluntary protection services (or self-protection,) and with enough wealth to defend themselves from foreign states too. If Afgahnistan can do it, then a government-less U.S. could easily repel foreign states, and likely several other advanced nations could too.

Now, I honestly doubt that'll ever materialize in my lifetime, or anytime in the near future, but it's the moral ideal, and the most practically effective in terms of providing security and allowing for prosperity, so of course I try to choose options that lead closer to that ideal.

Given an already advanced and wealthy nation, and the option of continuing its government or disbanding it (or at least disbanding the higher levels,) I'll always opt for the latter. And while I believe it'll lead to greater personal benefit for me, that's not why I'd choose it... I'd choose it because I believe that that is the moral option, because I believe that initiating force against someone who has not done so is wrong, and is one of the greater wrongs that mankind is capable of.


I grew up in an environment where people were being snatched off the street and killed for having the wrong religion so I believe allowing the bad guys to initiate force is bad. <snip> Its immoral to allow that.

I'm not ignoring the snipped portion, I'll address it below.

I think the blanket statement that it's "immoral to allow" something is a slippery slope. Yes, I believe that generally speaking, someone with the power to do good for someone who needs it, but who doesn't do it, is wrong. But IMO such things should be examined and sometimes taken on a case-by-case basis.

That said, I understand where you're coming from, and tend to agree with the sentiment.

The question becomes, is a formal nation-state the most appropriate (and most effective) way to handle that? After all, all nation-states themselves initiate force on innocents to varying degrees. If you're willing to just settle for the state because it initiates less visible, less damaging force, then why bother trying to argue that it has any level of legitimacy? Why not just state, "they're a less violent gang, so I support them, even if they do wrong," and be done with it? That's what most people arguing against the state resent most... the societal lie that the government has some sort of legitimate authority for what it does.


Quote
<inserted> We know that if you don't have police and an army in control of your street, bad stuff will happen. </insert>

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

By the way, these guys were citizen justice at its finest.  Some of their victims were Protestants but their tongues were destroyed with pliers before they got a chance to say so and then they were tortured to death.  That's what happens when you don't have police, courts and the rule of law.

This happens in situations with police, courts, and the rule of law as well. Even the most tyrannical regimes usually codify the evil they do as legal, for some strange, perverse reason (witness the U.S.'s NDAA and other recent laws.) Even though in some situations a government comes in and actually does good, the overall idea that government = safety, no government = destructive chaos is a false one. Such wrong usually occurs or fails to occur regardless of government presence.

There are a number of modern, wealthy society where most of the people aren't prone to this sort of thing in the first place, which can be seen somewhat by how often such things actually happen... police may act as a deterrent but they rarely actively prevent crimes, and if the populace is set on doing something, they will do it unless forcibly prevented. In such a society, I see no reason to believe that the replacement of a government with other, voluntary means of protection is going to be anything but positive.


Title: Re: A Way To Be Free - Robert LeFevre
Post by: hazek on May 31, 2012, 09:23:14 PM
Remove taxation and you have to find another way to pay for your legislature, your administration and judiciary.  What would that be?  
Those who value the services can pay for them. If the services deliver value, they will be funded. If they don't, they won't be.

You keep telling us about all these people who want a state so that it can force them to do what is "good" for them. Surely they will voluntarily pay for it?

Lets go back to the Jaycee Dugard case: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kidnapping_of_Jaycee_Lee_Dugard

Who should pay for the police investigation?  Her family?  Jaycee herself?  Is that your idea of voluntary payment?

Yet another example of how something can't be possible because you aren't smart enough to find a solution.. That's all your replies are, all the time. You point out a problem and then lack the imagination and mental capacity to find a non violent solution, and then you make a non sequitur saying it must be only solvable through violence.

News flash, there are no guarantees in life, that's why man invented insurance.


Title: Re: A Way To Be Free - Robert LeFevre
Post by: Hawker on May 31, 2012, 09:32:44 PM
Remove taxation and you have to find another way to pay for your legislature, your administration and judiciary.  What would that be?  
Those who value the services can pay for them. If the services deliver value, they will be funded. If they don't, they won't be.

You keep telling us about all these people who want a state so that it can force them to do what is "good" for them. Surely they will voluntarily pay for it?

Lets go back to the Jaycee Dugard case: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kidnapping_of_Jaycee_Lee_Dugard

Who should pay for the police investigation?  Her family?  Jaycee herself?  Is that your idea of voluntary payment?

Yet another example of how something can't be possible because you aren't smart enough to find a solution.. That's all your replies are, all the time. You point out a problem and then lack the imagination and mental capacity to find a non violent solution, and then you make a non sequitur saying it must be only solvable through violence.

News flash, there are no guarantees in life, that's why man invented insurance.

Actually I think the pay for the police from taxes is a fine solution.

Unless you are suggesting that if Jaycee wasn't insured, the kidnapping should not be investigated, insurance won't work. 


Title: Re: A Way To Be Free - Robert LeFevre
Post by: Hawker on May 31, 2012, 09:42:42 PM
...snip...

There are a number of modern, wealthy society where most of the people aren't prone to this sort of thing in the first place, which can be seen somewhat by how often such things actually happen... police may act as a deterrent but they rarely actively prevent crimes, and if the populace is set on doing something, they will do it unless forcibly prevented. In such a society, I see no reason to believe that the replacement of a government with other, voluntary means of protection is going to be anything but positive.


I totally reject that idea.  Take away the security bubble of the state and you are only a few hours away from looting, riots and murders.  In Ireland, it was the Brits deciding not to police certain areas caused hell to break loose.  Only last year, London police took a decision to "prioritise preserving life over preserving property" and the city was racked by violence and riots within 30 minutes.  

We are a violent species - any system of government must begin from the reality that individuals will be as violent as you allow them to be and that its laws that restrain us.


Title: Re: A Way To Be Free - Robert LeFevre
Post by: FirstAscent on June 01, 2012, 12:14:00 AM
I think the difference between us is that I have a far lower opinion of my fellowman than you.
I've often noticed that apologists for the state have low opinions of their fellowmen. Contempt, even.

The old saying of "it takes one to know one" springs to mind.

Those who cherish freedom and voluntaryism, on the other hand, tend to respect their fellowmen and can see the great potential of human nature if unchained.
I’m with Hawker. Since humans are animals, violence, theft and even rape is inherent.

I cannot imagine privatized law, justice and execution not ending in terrible disasters caused by faulty incentives (it’s all about who pays best).

The only thing that would change my mind is an anarchist society that actually ends up being prosperous and peaceful. And of course doesn’t collapse within years because a state forms. This has never happened in history, so the burden is on the anarchists to show it can work and most importantly, be sustained.

It's never happened in history because it's vulnerable to being replaced by governance. Only the deluded believe it would work.


Title: Re: A Way To Be Free - Robert LeFevre
Post by: hashman on June 01, 2012, 03:02:43 PM
...snip...

There are a number of modern, wealthy society where most of the people aren't prone to this sort of thing in the first place, which can be seen somewhat by how often such things actually happen... police may act as a deterrent but they rarely actively prevent crimes, and if the populace is set on doing something, they will do it unless forcibly prevented. In such a society, I see no reason to believe that the replacement of a government with other, voluntary means of protection is going to be anything but positive.


I totally reject that idea.  Take away the security bubble of the state and you are only a few hours away from looting, riots and murders.  In Ireland, it was the Brits deciding not to police certain areas caused hell to break loose.  Only last year, London police took a decision to "prioritise preserving life over preserving property" and the city was racked by violence and riots within 30 minutes.  

We are a violent species - any system of government must begin from the reality that individuals will be as violent as you allow them to be and that its laws that restrain us.

So we are a violent species.. therefore we should give unaccountable people weapons and authority to do violence? 
The police become necessary in a society in that juncture in the society where there is a division because those who have and those who have not - Malcolm X


Title: Re: A Way To Be Free - Robert LeFevre
Post by: Hawker on June 01, 2012, 03:41:26 PM
...snip...

We are a violent species - any system of government must begin from the reality that individuals will be as violent as you allow them to be and that its laws that restrain us.

So we are a violent species.. therefore we should give unaccountable people weapons and authority to do violence?  
The police become necessary in a society in that juncture in the society where there is a division because those who have and those who have not - Malcolm X

Stop pretending that you don't live in a democracy where the police are accountable.


Title: Re: A Way To Be Free - Robert LeFevre
Post by: FirstAscent on June 01, 2012, 05:45:20 PM
...snip...

We are a violent species - any system of government must begin from the reality that individuals will be as violent as you allow them to be and that its laws that restrain us.

So we are a violent species.. therefore we should give unaccountable people weapons and authority to do violence?  
The police become necessary in a society in that juncture in the society where there is a division because those who have and those who have not - Malcolm X

Stop pretending that you don't live in a democracy where the police are accountable.

Post-apocalyptic books and stories are fun. It is fun to fantasize what it would be like to live in a world without laws and be self sufficient amongst a world ravaged by any of the following: asteroid impact, zombies, time rifts, armageddon, etc.

Ultimately, such stories involve militia types banding together, and building peaceful communities.

Fantasy is fun. Lots of people on this board are fantasists.


Title: Re: A Way To Be Free - Robert LeFevre
Post by: justusranvier on June 01, 2012, 06:48:53 PM
Stop pretending that you don't live in a democracy where the police are accountable.
Some people don't need to pretend. (http://www.policemisconduct.net/maps/searchable-map-2009-2010-misconduct-incidents/)


Title: Re: A Way To Be Free - Robert LeFevre
Post by: Hawker on June 01, 2012, 06:57:53 PM
Stop pretending that you don't live in a democracy where the police are accountable.
Some people don't need to pretend. (http://www.policemisconduct.net/maps/searchable-map-2009-2010-misconduct-incidents/)

Same fallacy again and again.  You say the police system isn't perfect so lets hand ourselves over to mob rule.  How about coming up with something better?


Title: Re: A Way To Be Free - Robert LeFevre
Post by: justusranvier on June 01, 2012, 07:00:24 PM
Same fallacy again and again.  You say the police system isn't perfect so lets hand ourselves over to mob rule.  How about coming up with something better?
No, I say we have mob rule right now. The "something better" is to stop handing over power and control to psychopaths to limit the amount of damage they are able to inflict on society.


Title: Re: A Way To Be Free - Robert LeFevre
Post by: FirstAscent on June 01, 2012, 07:05:58 PM
Same fallacy again and again.  You say the police system isn't perfect so lets hand ourselves over to mob rule.  How about coming up with something better?
No, I say we have mob rule right now. The "something better" is to stop handing over power and control to psychopaths to limit the amount of damage they are able to inflict on society.

There comes a point where some of us just have to say you're deluded, naive, and on a childish little rant.

Prove me wrong: point out how the absence of that which you moan about will not create a vacuum in which the worst of what you fear will move in and replace exactly that which you despise.


Title: Re: A Way To Be Free - Robert LeFevre
Post by: FirstAscent on June 01, 2012, 07:08:53 PM
Stop pretending that you don't live in a democracy where the police are accountable.
Some people don't need to pretend. (http://www.policemisconduct.net/maps/searchable-map-2009-2010-misconduct-incidents/)

The Cato Institute. They're one of the brownlashers. They're on the same pedestal as the Heartland Institute, the creators of the Oregon Petition, Frederick Seitz, and others. They can all be summarized as organizations who place political ideals over research.


Title: Re: A Way To Be Free - Robert LeFevre
Post by: justusranvier on June 01, 2012, 07:20:46 PM
Prove me wrong: point out how the absence of that which you moan about will not create a vacuum in which the worst of what you fear will move in and replace exactly that which you despise.
I have two questions for you first. 1) What do you use as a standard for proof? 2) If I do prove it will you change your position?


Title: Re: A Way To Be Free - Robert LeFevre
Post by: memvola on June 01, 2012, 07:27:02 PM
Stop pretending that you don't live in a democracy where the police are accountable.

FWIW, my only personal violent encounters so far has been with the police. Things like getting beaten up because I looked at them the wrong way, or being forced to give bribes to let them give up their random searches for drugs in my shop. In none of these encounters have I been breaking the law or performing a violent act, and I have never been vindicated. Not to mention that going after the police has its risks.

Your argument is, this happened to me because I have lived in a shitty country. I don't think this claim helps your point. Police accountability may be a slightly better preventive measure against corruption in the West, but that's not because the police force is more powerful. It's a cultural thing. While people won't stand for this specific kind of abuse in the West, they easily accept harsh punishments which would result in a slap on the wrist in Middle East.

So existence of police can't be the only requirement for the climate you advocate. It is a very intricate issue.

Now, I don't know if anyone here is claiming that if the State disappeared, a spontaneous anarchy would form and we will all prosper. For me, it's rather about speculations on what can be done, what sort of people can do it, is it worth it, etc.

(edited for clarification)


Title: Re: A Way To Be Free - Robert LeFevre
Post by: Hawker on June 01, 2012, 07:28:18 PM
Same fallacy again and again.  You say the police system isn't perfect so lets hand ourselves over to mob rule.  How about coming up with something better?
No, I say we have mob rule right now. The "something better" is to stop handing over power and control to psychopaths to limit the amount of damage they are able to inflict on society.

You have to have some kind of security force.  You say "I don't like the security force we have now" and when challenged to come up with something better you repeat "I don't like the security force we have now."

Come up with something better.  


Title: Re: A Way To Be Free - Robert LeFevre
Post by: justusranvier on June 01, 2012, 07:33:49 PM
Come up with something better.
What criteria will you accept as "better"? It does no good for me to explain something if we don't agree on a common definition.  It's especially a waste of time if your questions are not asked in good faith, but rather are just diversions and smoke screens.


Title: Re: A Way To Be Free - Robert LeFevre
Post by: FirstAscent on June 01, 2012, 07:36:33 PM
Prove me wrong: point out how the absence of that which you moan about will not create a vacuum in which the worst of what you fear will move in and replace exactly that which you despise.
I have two questions for you first. 1) What do you use as a standard for proof? 2) If I do prove it will you change your position?

1. Convincing facts, logic, well articulated points which do not cite sham organizations which can be demonstrated to be sham organizations, arguments which avoid memes such as 'Blue suits', arguments which do not sound like herd mentality from the latest libertarian 'think tanks', reasonable extrapolation of data, and a solid acknowledgement of historical cases when proposing ideas.

2. If can't rip apart your arguments based on criteria listed above, I will at least shut up.


Title: Re: A Way To Be Free - Robert LeFevre
Post by: Hawker on June 01, 2012, 07:37:03 PM
Stop pretending that you don't live in a democracy where the police are accountable.

FWIW, my only personal violent encounters so far has been with the police. Things like getting beaten up because I looked at them the wrong way, or being forced to give bribes to let them give up their random searches for drugs in my shop. In none of these encounters have I been breaking the law or performing a violent act, and I have never been vindicated. Not to mention that going after the police has its risks.

Your argument is, this happened to me because I have lived in a shitty country. I don't think this claim helps your point. Police accountability may be a slightly better preventive measure against corruption in the West, but that's not because the police force is more powerful. It's a cultural thing. While people won't stand for this specific kind of abuse in the West, they easily accept harsh punishments which would result in a slap on the wrist in Middle East.

So existence of police can't be the only requirement for the climate you advocate. It is a very intricate issue.

Now, I don't know if anyone here is claiming that if the State disappeared, a spontaneous anarchy would form and we will all prosper. For me, it's rather about speculations on what can be done, what sort of people can do it, is it worth it, etc.

(edited for clarification)

I've been in custody in Turkey.  I know what exactly you mean and how you need to see people for papers and bring presents.  But even in Turkey, the police have improved as the democratic state got stronger over the last 2 decades.  The truly dangerous people are the leftist and the religious who put you in the boot of a car and administer their own justice.  

What I am saying is that we know violence is inevitable but that a police force in a democratic state is a better bet than letting anyone with a money to hire militias and do what they want.  I think that is true in countries that are half democratic with police forces that are sort of accountable as well.  The better way is to have more democracy and more accountability.


Title: Re: A Way To Be Free - Robert LeFevre
Post by: justusranvier on June 01, 2012, 07:44:11 PM
1. Convincing facts, logic, well articulated points which do not cite sham organizations which can be demonstrated to be sham organizations, arguments which avoid memes such as 'Blue suits', arguments which do not sound like herd mentality from the latest libertarian 'think tanks', reasonable extrapolation of data, and a solid acknowledgement of historical cases when proposing ideas.
I was hoping for something a bit less subjective. How do I know ahead of time if a logical statement will sound reasonable to you, or if a set of facts comes from an organization that you approve of and avoids anything you consider to be a meme or herd mentality?

I feel like what you're saying is that if I write something that you agree with it you'll accept it and if you don't agree you won't. If that's the case I'm not at all interested in that conversation.


Title: Re: A Way To Be Free - Robert LeFevre
Post by: FirstAscent on June 01, 2012, 07:51:17 PM
1. Convincing facts, logic, well articulated points which do not cite sham organizations which can be demonstrated to be sham organizations, arguments which avoid memes such as 'Blue suits', arguments which do not sound like herd mentality from the latest libertarian 'think tanks', reasonable extrapolation of data, and a solid acknowledgement of historical cases when proposing ideas.
I was hoping for something a bit less subjective. How do I know ahead of time if a logical statement will sound reasonable to you, or if a set of facts comes from an organization that you approve of and avoids anything you consider to be a meme or herd mentality?

I feel like what you're saying is that if I write something that you agree with it you'll accept it and if you don't agree you won't. If that's the case I'm not at all interested in that conversation.

The burden lies with you to be convincing and, since you seem to want to prove something, then the burden further lies with you to prove your arguments.

I suggest you get to proving. If you've got proof, then how could I refute it?


Title: Re: A Way To Be Free - Robert LeFevre
Post by: FirstAscent on June 01, 2012, 07:53:43 PM
1. Convincing facts, logic, well articulated points which do not cite sham organizations which can be demonstrated to be sham organizations, arguments which avoid memes such as 'Blue suits', arguments which do not sound like herd mentality from the latest libertarian 'think tanks', reasonable extrapolation of data, and a solid acknowledgement of historical cases when proposing ideas.

I was hoping for something a bit less subjective.

On further analysis, your statement seems rather sad. Are you saying you can't adhere to what I listed as criteria for convincing argumentation? Please tell me which of those listed above are too difficult to adhere to?


Title: Re: A Way To Be Free - Robert LeFevre
Post by: hashman on June 01, 2012, 09:04:30 PM
...snip...

We are a violent species - any system of government must begin from the reality that individuals will be as violent as you allow them to be and that its laws that restrain us.

So we are a violent species.. therefore we should give unaccountable people weapons and authority to do violence?  
The police become necessary in a society in that juncture in the society where there is a division because those who have and those who have not - Malcolm X

Stop pretending that you don't live in a democracy where the police are accountable.

Where I live is irrelevant to the conversation, sorry I asked you but thanks for not answering ;) 

Armed and uniformed gang members can get away with quite a bit of corruption and destruction in most places..  asset confiscation, indefinite detention, all the way to torture, murder..  the examples are so endless and daily there is no need to post links.  You might want to consider your own health and that of your family before you go supporting that kind of madness.  It will seem like somebody else getting the stick and you will find some way to rationalize that they deserve it until it is you or the people you love.  Then what will you do or say? 

 

 


Title: Re: A Way To Be Free - Robert LeFevre
Post by: Hawker on June 01, 2012, 10:12:18 PM
...snip...

We are a violent species - any system of government must begin from the reality that individuals will be as violent as you allow them to be and that its laws that restrain us.

So we are a violent species.. therefore we should give unaccountable people weapons and authority to do violence?  
The police become necessary in a society in that juncture in the society where there is a division because those who have and those who have not - Malcolm X

Stop pretending that you don't live in a democracy where the police are accountable.

Where I live is irrelevant to the conversation, sorry I asked you but thanks for not answering ;) 

Armed and uniformed gang members can get away with quite a bit of corruption and destruction in most places..  asset confiscation, indefinite detention, all the way to torture, murder..  the examples are so endless and daily there is no need to post links.  You might want to consider your own health and that of your family before you go supporting that kind of madness.  It will seem like somebody else getting the stick and you will find some way to rationalize that they deserve it until it is you or the people you love.  Then what will you do or say? 

In the real world, people are violent and that includes police.  Police are generally restrained by rules and by law.  Mobs are not.  Police generally have to get evidence and go to court.  Mobs kill on suspicion.  For example, mobs riot to get rid of paedophiles and they attack paediatricians.  Police don't do that.  In my case, some Irish people were jailed for murder after being tortured by British police.  Far far more were killed by British mobs.  At least the victims of the police were eventually released and paid damages. 

So given the choice between a mob and  a police force, its obvious that the police force is better.  If you don't like that, suggest something even better rather than say the police are not perfect so we have to endure mob law.


Title: Re: A Way To Be Free - Robert LeFevre
Post by: hashman on June 03, 2012, 06:42:07 PM
...snip...

We are a violent species - any system of government must begin from the reality that individuals will be as violent as you allow them to be and that its laws that restrain us.

So we are a violent species.. therefore we should give unaccountable people weapons and authority to do violence?  
The police become necessary in a society in that juncture in the society where there is a division because those who have and those who have not - Malcolm X

Stop pretending that you don't live in a democracy where the police are accountable.

Where I live is irrelevant to the conversation, sorry I asked you but thanks for not answering ;) 

Armed and uniformed gang members can get away with quite a bit of corruption and destruction in most places..  asset confiscation, indefinite detention, all the way to torture, murder..  the examples are so endless and daily there is no need to post links.  You might want to consider your own health and that of your family before you go supporting that kind of madness.  It will seem like somebody else getting the stick and you will find some way to rationalize that they deserve it until it is you or the people you love.  Then what will you do or say? 

In the real world, people are violent and that includes police.  Police are generally restrained by rules and by law.  Mobs are not.  Police generally have to get evidence and go to court.  Mobs kill on suspicion.  For example, mobs riot to get rid of paedophiles and they attack paediatricians.  Police don't do that.  In my case, some Irish people were jailed for murder after being tortured by British police.  Far far more were killed by British mobs.  At least the victims of the police were eventually released and paid damages. 

So given the choice between a mob and  a police force, its obvious that the police force is better.  If you don't like that, suggest something even better rather than say the police are not perfect so we have to endure mob law.

Yeah let me suggest something better, because I disagree completely.  I'm sure you realize the statistics are against your argument.  How many people are jailed by mobs?  How many are killed by mobs?  How many killed or jailed by police / representatives of the state?  Do mobs create nuclear weapons, solitary confinement, guantanamo bay, etc etc? 

But you are right to look for ideas for improvement rather than criticisms.  Some ideas that have had some success around the world:

1) require state/police actions to be monitored and reviewed by peers
2) require patrols to have 1 male / 1 female to help defuse situations
3) maintain a well armed and trained militia
4) maintain procedures / rights such as "innocent until proven guilty" that combat the "people are violent" instincts you outline
5) consider psychological screening and testing for positions which invite abuse
6) eliminate laws such as prohibition which are designed to reward corruption

These things are not easy to maintain.  fight the power:  freedom requires constant vigilance. 


Title: Re: A Way To Be Free - Robert LeFevre
Post by: Hawker on June 03, 2012, 08:39:11 PM
...snip...

Yeah let me suggest something better, because I disagree completely.  I'm sure you realize the statistics are against your argument.  How many people are jailed by mobs?  How many are killed by mobs?  How many killed or jailed by police / representatives of the state?  Do mobs create nuclear weapons, solitary confinement, guantanamo bay, etc etc? 

But you are right to look for ideas for improvement rather than criticisms.  Some ideas that have had some success around the world:

1) require state/police actions to be monitored and reviewed by peers
2) require patrols to have 1 male / 1 female to help defuse situations
3) maintain a well armed and trained militia
4) maintain procedures / rights such as "innocent until proven guilty" that combat the "people are violent" instincts you outline
5) consider psychological screening and testing for positions which invite abuse
6) eliminate laws such as prohibition which are designed to reward corruption

These things are not easy to maintain.  fight the power:  freedom requires constant vigilance. 


All things we can agree on :D  especially "freedom requires constant vigilance."  Without transparency, there is a process called regulatory capture that means every institution ends up being corrupted by the problem it was set up to solve.  For example, in the UK, the Department of Education is really the Department of the National Union of Teachers and the Financial Services Authority is really controlled by the banks its meant to regulate. 


Title: Re: A Way To Be Free - Robert LeFevre
Post by: memvola on June 05, 2012, 03:16:14 AM
The truly dangerous people are the leftist and the religious who put you in the boot of a car and administer their own justice.  

Evidently I'm better with the leftist and the religious than the police. ;)

What I am saying is that we know violence is inevitable but that a police force in a democratic state is a better bet than letting anyone with a money to hire militias and do what they want.  I think that is true in countries that are half democratic with police forces that are sort of accountable as well.  The better way is to have more democracy and more accountability.

I don't mean to revive the discussion, but since we've already established that the system itself is not enough, I don't see much difference between letting anyone hire militias and your democratic way, other than the fact that we've already paid the price of the latter. If you suddenly opened the floodgates and let people manage their own security, I'm sure the same would happen again, millions would suffer until a more coherent state is reached. That doesn't mean the core idea is bad. If we agree that interdependence and fluidity could be enough for such a solution to work, and that it would indeed be better, then maybe we can also find a way to make a leap without such a destructive path of evolution.


Title: Re: A Way To Be Free - Robert LeFevre
Post by: FirstAscent on June 05, 2012, 03:43:23 AM
You fail to recognize what a society of hiring militias would be like sans police and government intervention. Your only point of reference is what misfortunes might befall you in a world that has police. Sadly, it's the mistake most make here when advocating privatized liberties.


Title: Re: A Way To Be Free - Robert LeFevre
Post by: memvola on June 05, 2012, 05:16:32 AM
You fail to recognize what a society of hiring militias would be like sans police and government intervention. Your only point of reference is what misfortunes might befall you in a world that has police. Sadly, it's the mistake most make here when advocating privatized liberties.

How did you arrive at that conclusion? From the point where I said millions would suffer?

First off, there isn't a prototype human being, or a "human nature" that has more of a say in this matter than the cultural norms. In other words, humans are very programmable. If we have to require them to be vigilant in some manner, why not require them to be vigilant in some other way? So I think the situation is contrary, you're arguing from lack of imagination, merely constructing an image about immediate outcomes of some enforced circumstances. I'm not so confident that a specific approach is better than what you propose as the ultimate solution, but it sure as hell is debatable.

For instance, when nukes were possible but not yet available, even discussing the feasibility of mutually assured destruction must have seemed crazy to most people. Is it counter-intuitive though? I don't think so. It just wasn't common sense. Now it is.

I think the idea is to identify the assumptions we need to make about the society in order for the conclusion to differ from your scenario (yeah, the burden is on the anarchists here). I don't find the "humans are crap" argument very satisfying.


Title: Re: A Way To Be Free - Robert LeFevre
Post by: justusranvier on June 05, 2012, 05:27:25 AM
(yeah, the burden is on the anarchists here)
Not at all. The argument against the state is a moral argument, just like the argument against slavery. It is no more necessary for anarchists to predict how a society would function without a state than it was necessary for abolitionists to predict how agriculture would work in the absence of slave labor.

Everybody already accepts that compulsion is wrong when they are on the receiving end of it; the job of the anarchist is to get people to accept that the excuses which are commonly used to justify exceptions to this principle are invalid.



Title: Re: A Way To Be Free - Robert LeFevre
Post by: Hawker on June 05, 2012, 08:56:35 AM
(yeah, the burden is on the anarchists here)
Not at all. The argument against the state is a moral argument, just like the argument against slavery. It is no more necessary for anarchists to predict how a society would function without a state than it was necessary for abolitionists to predict how agriculture would work in the absence of slave labor.

Everybody already accepts that compulsion is wrong when they are on the receiving end of it; the job of the anarchist is to get people to accept that the excuses which are commonly used to justify exceptions to this principle are invalid.



But what you are proposing is more violence and more compulsion.  Ideas like the separation of powers were created and implemented to restrain the violence that allowing anyone with power to do what they want.  You want to take the restraints away.  That is not a strong moral argument.


Title: Re: A Way To Be Free - Robert LeFevre
Post by: justusranvier on June 05, 2012, 03:53:22 PM
But what you are proposing is more violence and more compulsion.  Ideas like the separation of powers were created and implemented to restrain the violence that allowing anyone with power to do what they want.
How do you know what you are saying is objectively true instead of just being a story?


Title: Re: A Way To Be Free - Robert LeFevre
Post by: Hawker on June 05, 2012, 04:03:49 PM
But what you are proposing is more violence and more compulsion.  Ideas like the separation of powers were created and implemented to restrain the violence that allowing anyone with power to do what they want.
How do you know what you are saying is objectively true instead of just being a story?

There is this thing called history.  It shows that there has never been a society where failure to restrain violence did not result in unpleasantness.  You can argue that history is not more than personal experiences and anecdotes.  But you can't argue that allowing people have unrestrained power has ever proved a good long term system.


Title: Re: A Way To Be Free - Robert LeFevre
Post by: justusranvier on June 05, 2012, 04:09:54 PM
There is this thing called history.  It shows that there has never been a society where failure to restrain violence did not result in unpleasantness.  You can argue that history is not more than personal experiences and anecdotes.  But you can't argue that allowing people have unrestrained power has ever proved a good long term system.
So how well does the state model restrain the actions of the government? Just to pick on the the US for the moment, I don't see any effective restraint at all. Agents of the government seem to be able to act with near impunity and have an unimaginable amount of resources at their disposal. Exactly what is being restrained here?


Title: Re: A Way To Be Free - Robert LeFevre
Post by: Hawker on June 05, 2012, 04:28:05 PM
There is this thing called history.  It shows that there has never been a society where failure to restrain violence did not result in unpleasantness.  You can argue that history is not more than personal experiences and anecdotes.  But you can't argue that allowing people have unrestrained power has ever proved a good long term system.
So how well does the state model restrain the actions of the government? Just to pick on the the US for the moment, I don't see any effective restraint at all. Agents of the government seem to be able to act with near impunity and have an unimaginable amount of resources at their disposal. Exactly what is being restrained here?

You see that's where reality and daydreams part company.  In Syria or China, if you offend the government or a member of an important family, you die.  In the US, if you carry out an egregious killing, you may die but first you have 10 or so years of trials and appeals.  The reason for that is that the US executive requires authority from its judiciary to kill someone.  

I'm sure you have some anecdote about someone who died despite this system.  But its a comparative thing - there is a greater chance of being killed by a warlord in Somalia than by the FBI in the US.


Title: Re: A Way To Be Free - Robert LeFevre
Post by: justusranvier on June 05, 2012, 05:37:17 PM
But its a comparative thing - there is a greater chance of being killed by a warlord in Somalia than by the FBI in the US.
The two largest problems I see in this post is that the tribalism and theocracy in Somalia represent anarchy instead of just another form of government and that the killing of citizens by law enforcement is the only measure of state violence.


Title: Re: A Way To Be Free - Robert LeFevre
Post by: Hawker on June 05, 2012, 06:03:35 PM
But its a comparative thing - there is a greater chance of being killed by a warlord in Somalia than by the FBI in the US.
The two largest problems I see in this post is that the tribalism and theocracy in Somalia represent anarchy instead of just another form of government and that the killing of citizens by law enforcement is the only measure of state violence.

Then you need to read it again.

In a proper system, the person who is acting on behalf of the community to enforce order has to follow a law that is made by someone else and has to get permission from a judge.  Its called separation of powers. 

Imagine you abolish the US government and all forms of the US state. 

You still live in a community that thinks it right to stop people smoking dope.  The ex-cops, army, FBI and so on are still there but now they no longer need warrants to come after you.  They can come to your house when they like and do as they please.  And if they decide that you deserve punishment, there won't be a court.  It will be done then and there and your punishment will be whatever they think right.  If one of them is really against drugs, you may be killed.

Can you see the problem with this?  And why having those guys subject to law is better?


Title: Re: A Way To Be Free - Robert LeFevre
Post by: memvola on June 05, 2012, 08:08:42 PM
In Syria or China, if you offend the government or a member of an important family, you die.

One can argue that it works that way, not because Americans are more vigilant, but there isn't any real threat against the regime.

And yet, less "criminals" suffer under the fist of the government in both those countries (in peace time). You think more "good people" suffer under China's regime, and that's why you perceive a contrast. That's an ad hoc judgement and results from how you are raised in the first place. How do you know (or how does the State know) those kinds of offenders should not be killed? What if everyone was okay with it, out of fear or out of being brainwashed by a dream?

I'm not saying the USA is worse or anything like that, but it seems to me that your claim requires you to be neutral in these cases.

Imagine you abolish the US government and all forms of the US state. 

You still live in a community that thinks it right to stop people smoking dope.  The ex-cops, army, FBI and so on are still there but now they no longer need warrants to come after you.  They can come to your house when they like and do as they please.  And if they decide that you deserve punishment, there won't be a court.  It will be done then and there and your punishment will be whatever they think right.  If one of them is really against drugs, you may be killed.

This is what I was talking about. The picture you present is also a dream. Seriously, why do you omit a possible transitional period? Why don't you question what could be done to prevent those problems from happening in the first place?

With this attitude, how on Earth can you think Bitcoin could succeed? Look at history. There hasn't been a single currency who survived State monopoly, even gold. Besides, the history of Bitcoin is nothing but a series of thefts and scams.


Title: Re: A Way To Be Free - Robert LeFevre
Post by: Hawker on June 05, 2012, 09:14:43 PM
In Syria or China, if you offend the government or a member of an important family, you die.

One can argue that it works that way, not because Americans are more vigilant, but there isn't any real threat against the regime.

And yet, less "criminals" suffer under the fist of the government in both those countries (in peace time). You think more "good people" suffer under China's regime, and that's why you perceive a contrast. That's an ad hoc judgement and results from how you are raised in the first place. How do you know (or how does the State know) those kinds of offenders should not be killed? What if everyone was okay with it, out of fear or out of being brainwashed by a dream?

I'm not saying the USA is worse or anything like that, but it seems to me that your claim requires you to be neutral in these cases.

Imagine you abolish the US government and all forms of the US state. 

You still live in a community that thinks it right to stop people smoking dope.  The ex-cops, army, FBI and so on are still there but now they no longer need warrants to come after you.  They can come to your house when they like and do as they please.  And if they decide that you deserve punishment, there won't be a court.  It will be done then and there and your punishment will be whatever they think right.  If one of them is really against drugs, you may be killed.

This is what I was talking about. The picture you present is also a dream. Seriously, why do you omit a possible transitional period? Why don't you question what could be done to prevent those problems from happening in the first place?

With this attitude, how on Earth can you think Bitcoin could succeed? Look at history. There hasn't been a single currency who survived State monopoly, even gold. Besides, the history of Bitcoin is nothing but a series of thefts and scams.


I do a lot of business in China and I have a friend who was arrested last week.  Life for Chinese people who are not Party members is very arbitrary and they don't like it.  The ideal of buying your own house and having freedom to do business is not some cultural artefact.  People everywhere hate when an official comes along, arrests them and they have to pay to retain their own property.

I accept that I don't see how a transitional period to anarchy would work.  Americans seem obsessed with locking up criminals.  Take away your legal system and they will be obsessed with lynching criminals.  I know you think the system is what makes Americans brutal.  I think that its Americans make their own system brutal.  You only have to look at Mick Huckabee and Michael Dukakis.  2 decent men whose political careers were terminated because they showed mercy to criminals. 

Bitcoin is actually very useful for moving money without needing banks to help you.  I don't think it will ever be used to buy drinks in a bar but it will be used to buy yachts and jets and the like.