Why are people scared of taxes?

[myrkul]

John Locke's philosophy is what it is.  If you change it or add to it, it is no longer Locke's philosophy.  Locke himself built the work of many other philosophers.  If you choose to build on elements from Locke, it doesn't make it his philosophy.

But you can still say "I base my philosophy on John Locke."

I don't think Locke's social contract establishing civil society would work if every person in the society would have their own contract with everyone else, and some will end up without a contract, or a contract signed only by a few other people.  Not to mention the humongous bureaucracy we would get when everyone were to sign each others contracts, and to stay up to date those contracts would need renegotiation from time to time.  In some areas people would become entirely unprotected.  Your rape story suddenly get relevant again.  Perhaps you don't want any mention in your contract that you are not allowed to rape minors.  No, Locke wouldn't agree.  It contradicts his philosophy in so many ways.

Go read the Shire society declaration again. That is a social contract. It is the same for all who sign it. If everyone got to write their own contract, it wouldn't be a social contract. It would just be a contract. And in that case, yes, you're right it would be impossible to keep track of. But thankfully, it's not. A social contract is one which everyone signs. Like the US constitution, but with many more signatures.

Locke's is very clear that the citizens have a right to revolution to replace the government when it acts against the interests of citizens.  His social contract must be generally agreed to, not something which everyone are forced into against their common interests.  How is this revolution going to work when some have social contracts acting against the interests of a clear majority of the citizens?

But wait, I thought you said he would disagree with requiring that the social contract be entered into voluntarily, and explicitly agreed to? That, bolded there, seems to imply that he would agree. More than just imply, in fact. An explicit social contract is one that nobody is forced into. If they choose not to agree to that social contract, they can join a different society, or go it alone. This handily meets that "right to revolution" because they can easily, and non-violently, replace their government. Just not their neighbor's government. (Which would force them into a different social contract.)

Which law is your definition from?  Courts judge according to the law, not the dictionary!

It's called a legal dictionary. You should open one some time.

No, John Locke isn't a commie, but you obviously only agree to small pieces of his philosophy taken completely out of context.

On the contrary, you seem to misunderstand large portions of his philosophy. Or, you're just being an asshole. (As stated previously, I'm leaning toward the latter.)

I must admit my philosophy education, of which John Locke was only a small part of the curriculum, is limited to one semester at university.  Care to give any examples of what you think I misunderstood?

Property, for one. You seem to think shooting the owner of some land, or grinding him under your boot, makes it yours. (It does not.)

I never claimed John Locke said that.  And by the way, I want in my contract that grinding the owner of some land under my foot makes the land mine!  I'm going to this among a lot of legalese mumbo-jumbo on page 6502 in my contract, of course.

Well, it's true, you did never claim that. But thankfully, your "contract" is not the one I signed, so you can use it for toilet paper, for all I care.

Nobody has yet come forth with any decent reasoning as to why government agents have the ability to steal, murder, and kidnap, by the way. I'm still waiting.

[1714549100]

1714549100

[1714549100]

1714549100

[1714549100]

1714549100

[1714549100]

1714549100

[sturle]

John Locke's philosophy is what it is.  If you change it or add to it, it is no longer Locke's philosophy.  Locke himself built the work of many other philosophers.  If you choose to build on elements from Locke, it doesn't make it his philosophy.

But you can still say "I base my philosophy on John Locke."

Of course.  Many later philosophers have based their works on works of Locke.

I don't think Locke's social contract establishing civil society would work if every person in the society would have their own contract with everyone else, and some will end up without a contract, or a contract signed only by a few other people.  Not to mention the humongous bureaucracy we would get when everyone were to sign each others contracts, and to stay up to date those contracts would need renegotiation from time to time.  In some areas people would become entirely unprotected.  Your rape story suddenly get relevant again.  Perhaps you don't want any mention in your contract that you are not allowed to rape minors.  No, Locke wouldn't agree.  It contradicts his philosophy in so many ways.

Go read the Shire society declaration again. That is a social contract. It is the same for all who sign it. If everyone got to write their own contract, it wouldn't be a social contract. It would just be a contract. And in that case, yes, you're right it would be impossible to keep track of. But thankfully, it's not. A social contract is one which everyone signs. Like the US constitution, but with many more signatures.

I, for one, wouldn't dream of signing the Shire society declaration.  I don't think many thinking people would.  It has to many holes and no security.  I don't think you would get everyone to agree on the same contract.  We are all individuals.

Locke's is very clear that the citizens have a right to revolution to replace the government when it acts against the interests of citizens.  His social contract must be generally agreed to, not something which everyone are forced into against their common interests. How is this revolution going to work when some have social contracts acting against the interests of a clear majority of the citizens?

But wait, I thought you said he would disagree with requiring that the social contract be entered into voluntarily, and explicitly agreed to? That, bolded there, seems to imply that he would agree. More than just imply, in fact. An explicit social contract is one that nobody is forced into. If they choose not to agree to that social contract, they can join a different society, or go it alone. This handily meets that "right to revolution" because they can easily, and non-violently, replace their government. Just not their neighbor's government. (Which would force them into a different social contract.)

Different social contracts will have contradictions.  My social contract will have a police force to handle cases where the contract is broken.  E.g. if you steal my car.  If you belong to another contract, e.g. this Shire society, you wouldn't accept any of my police, and use "self defence" (whatever self defence is -- the contract doesn't specify e.g. proportional force like the Geneva conventions).  In the resulting fight, which is easily won by "my" police force, you hurt an innocent bystander by accident.  The bystander is member of a third society, which is basically a street gang which by their contract now have the obligation to take out revenge on all members of your society.  And we have it going.

No, this isn't going to work.  I prefer Locke's society to your plethora of intermingling societies.

Which law is your definition from?  Courts judge according to the law, not the dictionary!

It's called a legal dictionary. You should open one some time.

I have.  It had references to laws.  Which one was broken in this case?

Nobody has yet come forth with any decent reasoning as to why government agents have the ability to steal, murder, and kidnap, by the way. I'm still waiting.

Whatever.  It's all in the contract.  Laws.  A majority of the people around you, the civil society, think they are a good idea.

[myrkul]

I don't think Locke's social contract establishing civil society would work if every person in the society would have their own contract with everyone else, and some will end up without a contract, or a contract signed only by a few other people.  Not to mention the humongous bureaucracy we would get when everyone were to sign each others contracts, and to stay up to date those contracts would need renegotiation from time to time.  In some areas people would become entirely unprotected.  Your rape story suddenly get relevant again.  Perhaps you don't want any mention in your contract that you are not allowed to rape minors.  No, Locke wouldn't agree.  It contradicts his philosophy in so many ways.

Go read the Shire society declaration again. That is a social contract. It is the same for all who sign it. If everyone got to write their own contract, it wouldn't be a social contract. It would just be a contract. And in that case, yes, you're right it would be impossible to keep track of. But thankfully, it's not. A social contract is one which everyone signs. Like the US constitution, but with many more signatures.

I, for one, wouldn't dream of signing the Shire society declaration.  I don't think many thinking people would.  It has to many holes and no security.  I don't think you would get everyone to agree on the same contract.  We are all individuals.

Care to outline those holes? And what "security" does a social contract need? Either you sign it, or you're not part of the society. And yes, of course we're all individuals. That's the point of the Shire Society contract.

Locke's is very clear that the citizens have a right to revolution to replace the government when it acts against the interests of citizens.  His social contract must be generally agreed to, not something which everyone are forced into against their common interests. How is this revolution going to work when some have social contracts acting against the interests of a clear majority of the citizens?

But wait, I thought you said he would disagree with requiring that the social contract be entered into voluntarily, and explicitly agreed to? That, bolded there, seems to imply that he would agree. More than just imply, in fact. An explicit social contract is one that nobody is forced into. If they choose not to agree to that social contract, they can join a different society, or go it alone. This handily meets that "right to revolution" because they can easily, and non-violently, replace their government. Just not their neighbor's government. (Which would force them into a different social contract.)

Different social contracts will have contradictions.  My social contract will have a police force to handle cases where the contract is broken.  E.g. if you steal my car.  If you belong to another contract, e.g. this Shire society, you wouldn't accept any of my police, and use "self defence" (whatever self defence is -- the contract doesn't specify e.g. proportional force like the Geneva conventions).  In the resulting fight, which is easily won by "my" police force, you hurt an innocent bystander by accident.  The bystander is member of a third society, which is basically a street gang which by their contract now have the obligation to take out revenge on all members of your society.  And we have it going.

No, this isn't going to work.  I prefer Locke's society to your plethora of intermingling societies.

You'll note that stealing a car would also be against my contract: "no individual or association of individuals, however constituted, has the right to initiate force against any other individual." So I would not be able to claim self-defense against your collection agents. Who would likely not directly assault me, anyway. They'd probably call my protection agency (to whom I have delegated a portion of my ability to defend myself) and work out an arrangement where my defense agency comes and gets me (or at least the car).

Which law is your definition from?  Courts judge according to the law, not the dictionary!

It's called a legal dictionary. You should open one some time.

I have.  It had references to laws.  Which one was broken in this case?

I told you already, it wasn't a law, but a definition. When they say they don't meet that definition, then they have excluded themselves from any supposed "contract."

Nobody has yet come forth with any decent reasoning as to why government agents have the ability to steal, murder, and kidnap, by the way. I'm still waiting.

Whatever.  It's all in the contract.  Laws.  A majority of the people around you, the civil society, think they are a good idea.

Contract? What contract? I told you already, I didn't sign no contract.
"explicit voluntary association is the only means by which binding obligations may be created, and claims based on association or relationships to which any party did not consent are empty and invalid"
So give me a valid reason why they should have the ability to commit immoral actions. What puts them above the law?

[TheButterZone]

Nobody has yet come forth with any decent reasoning as to why government agents have the ability to steal, murder, and kidnap, by the way. I'm still waiting.

Whatever.  It's all in the contract.  Laws.  A majority of the people around you, the civil society, think they are a good idea.

The majority most certainly does not think the government should be able to evilly steal, murder, and kidnap, with impunity. Do not mistake the majority being woefully underequipped to enforce their own human rights (and their elections, which are rampantly decided by fraud in favor of the worst possible tyrants) for tacit approval. If a representative grand jury convened and unanimously found there was overwhelming evidence to prosecute almost every government official for treason and lesser offenses, the government would not allow itself to be punished, and that grand jury would be wasting its time. If that grand jury were fully equipped (armed equal to or greater than the government itself and with the support of a judicial system) to bring all those government officials to trial and ultimately sentencing, there would be another civil war here, guaranteed. Absolutely powerful tyrants will not go quietly into the night.

[sturle]

Go read the Shire society declaration again. That is a social contract. It is the same for all who sign it. If everyone got to write their own contract, it wouldn't be a social contract. It would just be a contract. And in that case, yes, you're right it would be impossible to keep track of. But thankfully, it's not. A social contract is one which everyone signs. Like the US constitution, but with many more signatures.

I, for one, wouldn't dream of signing the Shire society declaration.  I don't think many thinking people would.  It has to many holes and no security.  I don't think you would get everyone to agree on the same contract.  We are all individuals.

Care to outline those holes? And what "security" does a social contract need? Either you sign it, or you're not part of the society. And yes, of course we're all individuals. That's the point of the Shire Society contract.

Where do I start?

First of all there is no defence against abuse, except other members are prohibited to use force against me.  If they get away with it (I can only defend myself, nobody else, and nobody else can defend me without breaching the second).  The most worrying part is that there is no mention of relations to other societies.  There are also no mention of limits to defence.  It may end up like some sick cult where the members think they are allowed to kill people in "self defence" for the simplest offences.

Small children and people without the mental capability of signing a contract have no way to defend themselves.  If someone attacks my two year old son without attacking me, I have no right of initiating any kind of force against the offending individual to save my own son.  If I do, the attacker has the right of self defence by unspecified means.  No, I wouldn't dream of signing this contract.

Se the quote at the bottom for more reasons.

Locke's is very clear that the citizens have a right to revolution to replace the government when it acts against the interests of citizens.  His social contract must be generally agreed to, not something which everyone are forced into against their common interests. How is this revolution going to work when some have social contracts acting against the interests of a clear majority of the citizens?

But wait, I thought you said he would disagree with requiring that the social contract be entered into voluntarily, and explicitly agreed to? That, bolded there, seems to imply that he would agree. More than just imply, in fact. An explicit social contract is one that nobody is forced into. If they choose not to agree to that social contract, they can join a different society, or go it alone. This handily meets that "right to revolution" because they can easily, and non-violently, replace their government. Just not their neighbor's government. (Which would force them into a different social contract.)

Different social contracts will have contradictions.  My social contract will have a police force to handle cases where the contract is broken.  E.g. if you steal my car.  If you belong to another contract, e.g. this Shire society, you wouldn't accept any of my police, and use "self defence" (whatever self defence is -- the contract doesn't specify e.g. proportional force like the Geneva conventions).  In the resulting fight, which is easily won by "my" police force, you hurt an innocent bystander by accident.  The bystander is member of a third society, which is basically a street gang which by their contract now have the obligation to take out revenge on all members of your society.  And we have it going.

No, this isn't going to work.  I prefer Locke's government to your plethora of intermingling societies.

You'll note that stealing a car would also be against my contract: "no individual or association of individuals, however constituted, has the right to initiate force against any other individual." So I would not be able to claim self-defense against your collection agents. Who would likely not directly assault me, anyway. They'd probably call my protection agency (to whom I have delegated a portion of my ability to defend myself) and work out an arrangement where my defense agency comes and gets me (or at least the car).

You have no right by your contract to delegate the ability to defend yourself.  It belongs to the individual.  Your defenders can't initiate force against my police.  Only defend themselves.  Assuming they belong to the same society as you, but they will likely not.  They can make up their own contracts.  My police will certainly go directly for you and throw you before court and then in prison.

My society will be explicitly against dealing with so-called defence agencies.  We will have a secret group responsible for poisoning their water supplies with psychedelic drugs, hopefully keeping them out of business.  We don't want South African conditions.

Which law is your definition from?  Courts judge according to the law, not the dictionary!

It's called a legal dictionary. You should open one some time.

I have.  It had references to laws.  Which one was broken in this case?

I told you already, it wasn't a law, but a definition. When they say they don't meet that definition, then they have excluded themselves from any supposed "contract."

I don't get it.  What other contract than the law do the government have with this woman?  In what way would she have better protection if she was in your society, where there are no courts of laws or police or right to defend anyone but one self?

Nobody has yet come forth with any decent reasoning as to why government agents have the ability to steal, murder, and kidnap, by the way. I'm still waiting.

Whatever.  It's all in the contract.  Laws.  A majority of the people around you, the civil society, think they are a good idea.

Contract? What contract? I told you already, I didn't sign no contract.

I told you already as well.  Contract as of Locke's social contract.  Not your kind of contract.  You don't need to sign Locke's social contract.

"explicit voluntary association is the only means by which binding obligations may be created, and claims based on association or relationships to which any party did not consent are empty and invalid"
So give me a valid reason why they should have the ability to commit immoral actions. What puts them above the law?

They are not above the law.  The law, and the fact that the majority of the society backs the law, makes the actions moral.  Why do you think you are above the law?

I think you can rewrite "based on Locke" to "may have a distant relationship to some of John Locke's ideas".  For Locke government was inevitable.

The great and chief end, therefore, of men's uniting into commonwealths, and putting themselves under government, is the preservation of their property.  To which in the state of nature there are many things wanting.

First, There wants an established, settled, known law, received and allowed by common consent to be the standard of right and wrong, and the common measure to decide all controversies between them: for though the law of nature be plain and intelligible to all rational creatures; yet men being biassed by their interest, as well as ignorant for want of study of it, are not apt to allow of it as a law binding to them in the application of it to their particular cases.

Secondly, In the state of nature there wants a known and indifferent judge, with authority to determine all differences according to the established law: for every one in that state being both judge and executioner of the law of nature, men being partial to themselves, passion and revenge is very apt to carry them too far, and with too much heat, in their own cases; as well as negligence, and unconcernedness, to make them too remiss in other men's.

Thirdly, In the state of nature there often wants power to back and support the sentence when right, and to give it due execution, They who by any injustice offended, will seldom fail, where they are able, by force to make good their injustice; such resistance many times makes the punishment dangerous, and frequently destructive, to those who attempt it.

[myrkul]

Where do I start?

First of all there is no defence against abuse, except other members are prohibited to use force against me.  If they get away with it (I can only defend myself, nobody else, and nobody else can defend me without breaching the second).  The most worrying part is that there is no mention of relations to other societies.  There are also no mention of limits to defence.  It may end up like some sick cult where the members think they are allowed to kill people in "self defence" for the simplest offences.

Hmm.... I think you need to re-read it:

no individual or association of individuals, however constituted, has the right to initiate force against any other individual

Defending someone is by definition not initiating force. And proportional force is the accepted definition of "self defense".

Small children and people without the mental capability of signing a contract have no way to defend themselves.  If someone attacks my two year old son without attacking me, I have no right of initiating any kind of force against the offending individual to save my own son.  If I do, the attacker has the right of self defence by unspecified means.  No, I wouldn't dream of signing this contract.

Let's do this again:

no individual or association of individuals, however constituted, has the right to initiate force against any other individual

Defending someone is by definition not initiating force.

You have no right by your contract to delegate the ability to defend yourself.  It belongs to the individual.  Your defenders can't initiate force against my police.  Only defend themselves.  Assuming they belong to the same society as you, but they will likely not.  They can make up their own contracts.  My police will certainly go directly for you and throw you before court and then in prison.

And once more 'round:

no individual or association of individuals, however constituted, has the right to initiate force against any other individual

Defending someone is by definition not initiating force.

My society will be explicitly against dealing with so-called defence agencies.  We will have a secret group responsible for poisoning their water supplies with psychedelic drugs, hopefully keeping them out of business.  We don't want South African conditions.

That is initiating force, and will, if anything, bring about the conditions that (you say) you are trying to avoid.

I don't get it.  What other contract than the law do the government have with this woman?

You're right, you don't get it. You're the one spouting off about the social contract. That's the contract they removed themselves from.

In what way would she have better protection if she was in your society, where there are no courts of laws or police or right to defend anyone but one self?

Once again:

no individual or association of individuals, however constituted, has the right to initiate force against any other individual

Defending someone is by definition not initiating force, and market law (arbitration) and market defense (Private defense agencies) would do the job just as well (if not better) than the monopoly ones we're stuck with now.

They are not above the law.  The law, and the fact that the majority of the society backs the law, makes the actions moral.  What do you think you are above the law?

On the contrary, I am not above the law, and neither are they. If an action is immoral if I do it, it is immoral if they do it.

The great and chief end, therefore, of men's uniting into commonwealths, and putting themselves under government, is the preservation of their property.  To which in the state of nature there are many things wanting.

To which I respond:

First, There wants an established, settled, known law, received and allowed by common consent to be the standard of right and wrong, and the common measure to decide all controversies between them: for though the law of nature be plain and intelligible to all rational creatures; yet men being biassed by their interest, as well as ignorant for want of study of it, are not apt to allow of it as a law binding to them in the application of it to their particular cases.

Law does not need government. In fact, a free market in arbitration will produce the best law for all involved.

Secondly, In the state of nature there wants a known and indifferent judge, with authority to determine all differences according to the established law: for every one in that state being both judge and executioner of the law of nature, men being partial to themselves, passion and revenge is very apt to carry them too far, and with too much heat, in their own cases; as well as negligence, and unconcernedness, to make them too remiss in other men's.

Likewise, placing the power of judgment in the hands of the Market will best produce fairness and impartiality. Giving that power to the group who claims to be wronged will not result in an indifferent judge, indeed quite the opposite.

Thirdly, In the state of nature there often wants power to back and support the sentence when right, and to give it due execution, They who by any injustice offended, will seldom fail, where they are able, by force to make good their injustice; such resistance many times makes the punishment dangerous, and frequently destructive, to those who attempt it.

Once again, the Market is the answer. For financial crimes, restitution. For violent offenses, the defense is often sufficient to punish the offender.

In summation, sturle, you should read The Production of Security, by Gustave de Molinari. He says it much better than I.

[sturle]

Where do I start?

First of all there is no defence against abuse, except other members are prohibited to use force against me.  If they get away with it (I can only defend myself, nobody else, and nobody else can defend me without breaching the second).  The most worrying part is that there is no mention of relations to other societies.  There are also no mention of limits to defence.  It may end up like some sick cult where the members think they are allowed to kill people in "self defence" for the simplest offences.

Hmm.... I think you need to re-read it:

no individual or association of individuals, however constituted, has the right to initiate force against any other individual

Defending someone is by definition not initiating force. And proportional force is the accepted definition of "self defense".

At least there won't be any illegal copying by this law.  If I copy some copyrighted work, the only punishment would be copying the work back from me! 

And if you don't know for sure who did it, you are lost.  Nobody has the authority to take a suspect in for questioning or to investigate anything on other people's property.

I can see you want to legalize drunk driving.

Small children and people without the mental capability of signing a contract have no way to defend themselves.  If someone attacks my two year old son without attacking me, I have no right of initiating any kind of force against the offending individual to save my own son.  If I do, the attacker has the right of self defence by unspecified means.  No, I wouldn't dream of signing this contract.

Let's do this again:

no individual or association of individuals, however constituted, has the right to initiate force against any other individual

Defending someone is by definition not initiating force.

Self-defence is defined as defending one self, not defending other people, but the definition of this will probably vary.  It certainly needs some clarification.  Clarification could be done by courts, but you don't want it.  At least not one authoritative court.

You have no right by your contract to delegate the ability to defend yourself.  It belongs to the individual.  Your defenders can't initiate force against my police.  Only defend themselves.  Assuming they belong to the same society as you, but they will likely not.  They can make up their own contracts.  My police will certainly go directly for you and throw you before court and then in prison.

And once more 'round:

no individual or association of individuals, however constituted, has the right to initiate force against any other individual

Defending someone is by definition not initiating force.

Defending someone else is by definition not self-defence.

My society will be explicitly against dealing with so-called defence agencies.  We will have a secret group responsible for poisoning their water supplies with psychedelic drugs, hopefully keeping them out of business.  We don't want South African conditions.

That is initiating force, and will, if anything, bring about the conditions that (you say) you are trying to avoid.

No.  The situation I want to avoid is a lot of "defence" and "security" agencies, or criminals with weapons, and street gangs (it's pretty much the same), walking around and making the society unsafe for all other people than their customers.  My society will have a definitive prohibition against such agencies, with long prison terms for affiliation.

They are not above the law.  The law, and the fact that the majority of the society backs the law, makes the actions moral.  What do you think you are above the law?

On the contrary, I am not above the law, and neither are they. If an action is immoral if I do it, it is immoral if they do it.

When executing government authority they have the obligation according to the law, which a majority of the society agrees on, to act in this way.  This makes the actions moral when they do it, and immoral if you do it.  I think it is very sensible to limit those powers to a small well controlled group.

The great and chief end, therefore, of men's uniting into commonwealths, and putting themselves under government, is the preservation of their property.  To which in the state of nature there are many things wanting.

To which I respond:

First, There wants an established, settled, known law, received and allowed by common consent to be the standard of right and wrong, and the common measure to decide all controversies between them: for though the law of nature be plain and intelligible to all rational creatures; yet men being biassed by their interest, as well as ignorant for want of study of it, are not apt to allow of it as a law binding to them in the application of it to their particular cases.

Law does not need government. In fact, a free market in arbitration will produce the best law for all involved.

This is basically what is done now, yes?  Democracy and all.  John Locke never intended everyone to sign every law.  There were customary laws long before governments.  The laws where usually not written down, yet one would get punished for breaking them.  After describing the law of nature, he described why governments will come into being as a natural next step.

Secondly, In the state of nature there wants a known and indifferent judge, with authority to determine all differences according to the established law: for every one in that state being both judge and executioner of the law of nature, men being partial to themselves, passion and revenge is very apt to carry them too far, and with too much heat, in their own cases; as well as negligence, and unconcernedness, to make them too remiss in other men's.

Likewise, placing the power of judgment in the hands of the Market will best produce fairness and impartiality. Giving that power to the group who claims to be wronged will not result in an indifferent judge, indeed quite the opposite.

This does not make sense.  The market has no incentives for using an indifferent judge.  I would pay for the cheapest judge to judge in my favor.  The market will not guarantee a division of power either, which was important to Locke.

Thirdly, In the state of nature there often wants power to back and support the sentence when right, and to give it due execution, They who by any injustice offended, will seldom fail, where they are able, by force to make good their injustice; such resistance many times makes the punishment dangerous, and frequently destructive, to those who attempt it.

Once again, the Market is the answer. For financial crimes, restitution. For violent offenses, the defense is often sufficient to punish the offender.

Your society does not mention restitution!  And the point of punishing people for crimes is (in most countries, probably not yours with it's insane amount of prisoners per capita) not the punishment itself, but to give them education and guiding back to society as a normal law-abiding citizens.  Focus on punishment only brings us back to medieval times.  Hurting people physically will not accomplish anything but revenge.  We also have the case of mentally ill people who need treatment.  Punishment will only make them worse.

In summation, sturle, you should read The Production of Security, by Gustave de Molinari. He says it much better than I.

Another day.

[myrkul]

At least there won't be any illegal copying by this law.  If I copy some copyrighted work, the only punishment would be copying the work back from me! 

And if you don't know for sure who did it, you are lost.  Nobody has the authority to take a suspect in for questioning or to investigate anything on other people's property.

I can see you want to legalize drunk driving.

Driving drunk, in itself, does not harm anyone. It increases the risk of harming someone, but it does not actually cause harm directly. It's the crash which does the harm, and if you crash your car, drunk or sober, you are liable for the damages.

I'm not sure where you get that there will be no investigation. Even today, private detectives are a thriving business (though they currently limit themselves to things the police will not investigate, such as infidelity).

And, yes, Copyright goes right out the window, along with the other monopolies.

Self-defence is defined as defending one self, not defending other people, but the definition of this will probably vary.  It certainly needs some clarification.  Clarification could be done by courts, but you don't want it.  At least not one authoritative court.

Defending someone else is by definition not self-defence.

Self defense is indeed defending oneself. However, affirming the right to defend yourself and denying the existence of a right to initiate force do not together preclude the ability to defend another. Taken one way, Defending another could be seen as interposing yourself between the harm and the other, and then defending yourself. Taken another way, it is simply joining a fight already in progress. Either way, you are not initiating force, but replying to force with force. And I don't see any problem with a lack of monopoly courts. What could be more fair than a judge both parties agree on, rather than a judge who works for the same people as one party?

My society will be explicitly against dealing with so-called defence agencies.  We will have a secret group responsible for poisoning their water supplies with psychedelic drugs, hopefully keeping them out of business.  We don't want South African conditions.

That is initiating force, and will, if anything, bring about the conditions that (you say) you are trying to avoid.

No.  The situation I want to avoid is a lot of "defence" and "security" agencies, or criminals with weapons, and street gangs (it's pretty much the same), walking around and making the society unsafe for all other people than their customers.  My society will have a definitive prohibition against such agencies, with long prison terms for affiliation.

Wait, I thought you said there would be a secret group devoted to poisoning those agencies? Please decide whether you want to openly oppose them, or clandestinely.

While you're at it, I offer up the current example of Brinks and ADT. both are US security companies, whose services currently, like the private detectives I mentioned before, supplement the services of the police forces in the area. Without the monopoly on police that the government currently enjoys, those agencies would simply provide their own police. There is no evidence that they would suddenly start a war on each other's customers.

They are not above the law.  The law, and the fact that the majority of the society backs the law, makes the actions moral.  What do you think you are above the law?

On the contrary, I am not above the law, and neither are they. If an action is immoral if I do it, it is immoral if they do it.

When executing government authority they have the obligation according to the law, which a majority of the society agrees on, to act in this way.  This makes the actions moral when they do it, and immoral if you do it.  I think it is very sensible to limit those powers to a small well controlled group.

No, writing down words on paper making something "legal" does not confer morality. We covered that already.

The great and chief end, therefore, of men's uniting into commonwealths, and putting themselves under government, is the preservation of their property.  To which in the state of nature there are many things wanting.

To which I respond:

First, There wants an established, settled, known law, received and allowed by common consent to be the standard of right and wrong, and the common measure to decide all controversies between them: for though the law of nature be plain and intelligible to all rational creatures; yet men being biassed by their interest, as well as ignorant for want of study of it, are not apt to allow of it as a law binding to them in the application of it to their particular cases.

Law does not need government. In fact, a free market in arbitration will produce the best law for all involved.

This is basically what is done now, yes?  Democracy and all.  John Locke never intended everyone to sign every law.  There were customary laws long before governments.  The laws where usually not written down, yet one would get punished for breaking them.  After describing the law of nature, he described why governments will come into being as a natural next step.

No, it is not what is done now. Arbitration has nothing to do with, nor resembles in the least, "democracy". Arbitration is private courts, selected (either at the time, or in advance) by both parties.

Secondly, In the state of nature there wants a known and indifferent judge, with authority to determine all differences according to the established law: for every one in that state being both judge and executioner of the law of nature, men being partial to themselves, passion and revenge is very apt to carry them too far, and with too much heat, in their own cases; as well as negligence, and unconcernedness, to make them too remiss in other men's.

Likewise, placing the power of judgment in the hands of the Market will best produce fairness and impartiality. Giving that power to the group who claims to be wronged will not result in an indifferent judge, indeed quite the opposite.

This does not make sense.  The market has no incentives for using an indifferent judge.  I would pay for the cheapest judge to judge in my favor.  The market will not guarantee a division of power either, which was important to Locke.

Division of power, eh? Like the current system?
As to paying for the cheapest judge to judge in your favor, your opponent has the same incentive. When combined, the result is an indifferent judge. Unlike the current system, where one side always has the choice of the judge, and that same incentive, to pay for the cheapest judge to judge in their favor.

Thirdly, In the state of nature there often wants power to back and support the sentence when right, and to give it due execution, They who by any injustice offended, will seldom fail, where they are able, by force to make good their injustice; such resistance many times makes the punishment dangerous, and frequently destructive, to those who attempt it.

Once again, the Market is the answer. For financial crimes, restitution. For violent offenses, the defense is often sufficient to punish the offender.

Your society does not mention restitution!  And the point of punishing people for crimes is (in most countries, probably not yours with it's insane amount of prisoners per capita) not the punishment itself, but to give them education and guiding back to society as a normal law-abiding citizens.  Focus on punishment only brings us back to medieval times.  Hurting people physically will not accomplish anything but revenge.  We also have the case of mentally ill people who need treatment.  Punishment will only make them worse.

The contract does not mention restitution. Nor does it mention where I should park my car. These things do not need to be spelled out in the social contract.

In summation, sturle, you should read The Production of Security, by Gustave de Molinari. He says it much better than I.

Another day.

The sooner the better.

[sturle]

I can see you want to legalize drunk driving.

Driving drunk, in itself, does not harm anyone. It increases the risk of harming someone, but it does not actually cause harm directly. It's the crash which does the harm, and if you crash your car, drunk or sober, you are liable for the damages.

This does not deter people from driving or flying drunk, often ending up killing a lot of completely innocent people.  The risk of losing ones pilot or drivers licence for life + prison does.  Now all resemblance to John Locke's social contract is gone.  A working social contract must provide some security for the rest of the society.  Better security for one self and ones property is the reason why people will form governments, according to John Locke.  Your vision will be a large leap backwards towards anarchy, and even less security than the customary laws from before governments.  It ends up not working, because people will want more security for themselves and their property.

This theory may sound like paradise in some disgruntled peoples ears.  Most thinking people can easily see that it won't work.  Much like communism.

I'm not sure where you get that there will be no investigation. Even today, private detectives are a thriving business (though they currently limit themselves to things the police will not investigate, such as infidelity).

Unfaithful husbands and stuff, yes.  For a serious investigation they would need access to the garage where I keep my stolen cars and the bodies of the people who were in them (a simple way to make the self-defence part void, because there would no longer be a self to defend, and nobody to claim their property), and by your agreement they can't.

Self-defence is defined as defending one self, not defending other people, but the definition of this will probably vary.  It certainly needs some clarification.  Clarification could be done by courts, but you don't want it.  At least not one authoritative court.

Defending someone else is by definition not self-defence.

Self defense is indeed defending oneself. However, affirming the right to defend yourself and denying the existence of a right to initiate force do not together preclude the ability to defend another. Taken one way, Defending another could be seen as interposing yourself between the harm and the other, and then defending yourself. Taken another way, it is simply joining a fight already in progress. Either way, you are not initiating force, but replying to force with force. And I don't see any problem with a lack of monopoly courts. What could be more fair than a judge both parties agree on, rather than a judge who works for the same people as one party?

If you get into a fight you weren't a part of to start with, you are initiating force.  No force was used against you before you initiated force against the other participants, and they probably never intended to involve you.  If this can be used as an excuse for initiating force, the rule has no meaning.

And the judge will use what law?  A dozen different social contracts may be involved, in addition to free people and perhaps minors.  Perhaps a conservative Jew who only accept the Torah as law, and put one radical Islamist, a fanatical Christian and an atheist in the mix.  Sweet dreams.  This is going to work as smoothly as the Middle East, right? 

My society will be explicitly against dealing with so-called defence agencies.  We will have a secret group responsible for poisoning their water supplies with psychedelic drugs, hopefully keeping them out of business.  We don't want South African conditions.

That is initiating force, and will, if anything, bring about the conditions that (you say) you are trying to avoid.

No.  The situation I want to avoid is a lot of "defence" and "security" agencies, or criminals with weapons, and street gangs (it's pretty much the same), walking around and making the society unsafe for all other people than their customers.  My society will have a definitive prohibition against such agencies, with long prison terms for affiliation.

Wait, I thought you said there would be a secret group devoted to poisoning those agencies? Please decide whether you want to openly oppose them, or clandestinely.

Both, but the group would be targets if they work in the open.

While you're at it, I offer up the current example of Brinks and ADT. both are US security companies, whose services currently, like the private detectives I mentioned before, supplement the services of the police forces in the area. Without the monopoly on police that the government currently enjoys, those agencies would simply provide their own police. There is no evidence that they would suddenly start a war on each other's customers.

Sorry to hear about that story about security companies "supplementing" the police.  That's terrible!

They are not above the law.  The law, and the fact that the majority of the society backs the law, makes the actions moral.  What do you think you are above the law?

On the contrary, I am not above the law, and neither are they. If an action is immoral if I do it, it is immoral if they do it.

When executing government authority they have the obligation according to the law, which a majority of the society agrees on, to act in this way.  This makes the actions moral when they do it, and immoral if you do it.  I think it is very sensible to limit those powers to a small well controlled group.

No, writing down words on paper making something "legal" does not confer morality. We covered that already.

Go back and read it again.  You still don't understand the simplest logical primitives, and without them you are useless at discussions.  You should start with those before you start reading the philosophers.  I can't explain your logical fallacy better than I already did.

Secondly, In the state of nature there wants a known and indifferent judge, with authority to determine all differences according to the established law: for every one in that state being both judge and executioner of the law of nature, men being partial to themselves, passion and revenge is very apt to carry them too far, and with too much heat, in their own cases; as well as negligence, and unconcernedness, to make them too remiss in other men's.

Likewise, placing the power of judgment in the hands of the Market will best produce fairness and impartiality. Giving that power to the group who claims to be wronged will not result in an indifferent judge, indeed quite the opposite.

This does not make sense.  The market has no incentives for using an indifferent judge.  I would pay for the cheapest judge to judge in my favor.  The market will not guarantee a division of power either, which was important to Locke.

Division of power, eh? Like the current system?

Yep.  The courts in my country frequently judge against the other parts of the government.  If it doesn't work in your country, I suggest a revolution.

As to paying for the cheapest judge to judge in your favor, your opponent has the same incentive. When combined, the result is an indifferent judge. Unlike the current system, where one side always has the choice of the judge, and that same incentive, to pay for the cheapest judge to judge in their favor.

Incentive to find an indifferent judge?   No way!  No party will ever want an indifferent judge.  If I can't pay a judge to judge in my favor, and there is a real risk that I will lose the case, I have an incentive for not agreeing to a judge at all.  There won't be a case with an indifferent judge.  You will have an incentive for accepting my suggestion, hoping you will be able to get my cheap judge over to your side with enough money on the table.  Indifferent judges will never get any work.  You will either end up with a judge from one of the sides, potentially getting paid enough during the case to switch sides (you have no rules against corruption, btw) or no case at all.

Thirdly, In the state of nature there often wants power to back and support the sentence when right, and to give it due execution, They who by any injustice offended, will seldom fail, where they are able, by force to make good their injustice; such resistance many times makes the punishment dangerous, and frequently destructive, to those who attempt it.

Once again, the Market is the answer. For financial crimes, restitution. For violent offenses, the defense is often sufficient to punish the offender.

Your society does not mention restitution!  And the point of punishing people for crimes is (in most countries, probably not yours with it's insane amount of prisoners per capita) not the punishment itself, but to give them education and guiding back to society as a normal law-abiding citizens.  Focus on punishment only brings us back to medieval times.  Hurting people physically will not accomplish anything but revenge.  We also have the case of mentally ill people who need treatment.  Punishment will only make them worse.

The contract does not mention restitution. Nor does it mention where I should park my car. These things do not need to be spelled out in the social contract.

Restitution must be.  Otherwise you will not be allowed to take my property, which means you will only be able to get compensation.  No restitution.  (This is by the way common practice in most countries.  The USA is the only one I know of where restitution is commonplace.)

[TheButterZone]

Defending someone else is by definition not self-defence.

Whose definition? Literal bloody tyrants'? Just as the "auto" in autopsy doesn't mean you can only perform a post-mortem examination on yourself (you can't), the "self" in self-defence refers to all innocent life in the immediate area, and property in the lawful possession of, the defender.

[myrkul]

You know, I'm done slamming my head against this particular wall. I'm not getting paid for this, and you're just too damn stupid for me to do this for free.

[makomk]

False. This would be true if "privatized" meant "private monopoly", but it does not.

Try the following exercise: take a map of the US interstate system. Imagine that, instead of being government-run, it was owned and run by a private operator. Explain how you would build a competing long-distance road network, remembering that since all those roads are privately owned you need the permission of the owner to build anything that crosses them them.

What's more, since this monopoly is going to be more profitable for the road operators than running competing roads, without government intervention the free market would inexorably turn privatized roads into a monopoly.

Fun fact: Standard Oil dropped kerosene prices from 58 cents in 1865 to 26 cents in 1870.

I don't see where that's a problem.

They dropped kerosense prices to that level in the complete absense of functioning free-market competition. For example, they had secret deals with, or in many cases even owned, many of the pipelines and railroads which meant that even if someone had a cheaper and more efficient of refining oil they couldn't compete with Standard Oil because they'd have to pay far more to transport it and far more to buy crude. Likewise, competing railroads and pipelines couldn't make money because anyone using them had to rely on Standard Oil-run transportation as well and was driven out of business that way. I'm pretty sure the contortions Standard Oil went through to put their competitors' transportation costs up screwed over everyone else who needed to transport goods and distorted pricing in totally unrelated markets too, such as food.

[myrkul]

False. This would be true if "privatized" meant "private monopoly", but it does not.

Try the following exercise: take a map of the US interstate system. Imagine that, instead of being government-run, it was owned and run by a private operator. Explain how you would build a competing long-distance road network, remembering that since all those roads are privately owned you need the permission of the owner to build anything that crosses them them.

What's more, since this monopoly is going to be more profitable for the road operators than running competing roads, without government intervention the free market would inexorably turn privatized roads into a monopoly.

While you make a good point, you fail to account for the fact that there is already a competing network of long-distance roads (the county and state road systems), and that roads may indeed be outdated.

Fun fact: Standard Oil dropped kerosene prices from 58 cents in 1865 to 26 cents in 1870.

I don't see where that's a problem.

They dropped kerosense prices to that level in the complete absense of functioning free-market competition. For example, they had secret deals with, or in many cases even owned, many of the pipelines and railroads which meant that even if someone had a cheaper and more efficient of refining oil they couldn't compete with Standard Oil because they'd have to pay far more to transport it and far more to buy crude. Likewise, competing railroads and pipelines couldn't make money because anyone using them had to rely on Standard Oil-run transportation as well and was driven out of business that way. I'm pretty sure the contortions Standard Oil went through to put their competitors' transportation costs up screwed over everyone else who needed to transport goods and distorted pricing in totally unrelated markets too, such as food.

Please read: http://wiki.mises.org/wiki/Standard_Oil
I'm not going to retype or copy/paste what that article has to say, but it completely refutes your claims.

[Richy_T]

False. This would be true if "privatized" meant "private monopoly", but it does not.

Try the following exercise: take a map of the US interstate system. Imagine that, instead of being government-run, it was owned and run by a private operator. Explain how you would build a competing long-distance road network, remembering that since all those roads are privately owned you need the permission of the owner to build anything that crosses them them.

What makes you think we'd be driving cars or, better, need to be driving cars on such a system if the market was working? Cheap road use provides a perverse incentive.

[sturle]

And, yes, Copyright goes right out the window, along with the other monopolies.

How about natural monopolies?  Will they be regulated, or do you just deny their existence for simplicity.

E.g. in my country free competition is secured in the power market because electricity utility companies can't discriminate against producers.  I, as a consumer, can buy my electricity from whatever company I want to, and the utility company has to transport the power to me.  This ensures competition in the power market.  Before I had to buy electricity for the company which deliver the power, which was very much more expensive due to their natural monopoly.

Another example: Radio frequencies is a very limited resource.  I can easily make a new powerful long range high bandwidth wifi network for myself and my family, and at the same time make FM radio and VHF and UHF TV, all air navigation systems and all other medium to long range radio communication unusable in the area.  Should there be any regulation of the usage of this very limited common resource, or would that be immoral in your opinion?

[myrkul]

And, yes, Copyright goes right out the window, along with the other monopolies.

How about natural monopolies?  Will they be regulated, or do you just deny their existence for simplicity.

Sturle, maybe you missed my last posting to you? Unless you're offering to pay for an education?

[Richy_T]

And, yes, Copyright goes right out the window, along with the other monopolies.

How about natural monopolies?  Will they be regulated, or do you just deny their existence for simplicity.

E.g. in my country free competition is secured in the power market because electricity utility companies can't discriminate against producers.  I, as a consumer, can buy my electricity from whatever company I want to, and the utility company has to transport the power to me.  This ensures competition in the power market.  Before I had to buy electricity for the company which deliver the power, which was very much more expensive due to their natural monopoly.

Another example: Radio frequencies is a very limited resource.  I can easily make a new powerful long range high bandwidth wifi network for myself and my family, and at the same time make FM radio and VHF and UHF TV, all air navigation systems and all other medium to long range radio communication unusable in the area.  Should there be any regulation of the usage of this very limited common resource, or would that be immoral in your opinion?

Neither of these are really examples of natural monopolies. There is nothing but government regulation preventing competition in the first and in the second, it is perhaps arguable that a regulatory body is advantageous (though it is also arguable that they have stifled many great advancements from occuring) but monopoly it ain't.

[sturle]

Neither of these are really examples of natural monopolies. There is nothing but government regulation preventing competition in the first and in the second, it is perhaps arguable that a regulatory body is advantageous (though it is also arguable that they have stifled many great advancements from occuring) but monopoly it ain't.

Yes, they are due to the laws of physics.  There can be only one electric power supplier to every house.  High power cables/wires can't cross each other without interference.  For allowing more than one utility company access to every house, the companies must cooperate to allow for crossings without interfering with the service of the other company.  Why would a company which enjoy a monopoly allow this?  It is not likely, and would be terribly inefficient compared to one cable/line.

Similar for radio frequencies.  If I use the navaid frequencies for the closest airport for my own wlan, the airport would have to close for all IFR operations.  The airport needs to have a monopoly on using those frequencies for the navaids to work.

Both monopolies are necessary by laws of physics, not artificial causes like government regulations.  (Thomas Robert Malthus' definition of a natural monopoly, I know there are many.)

[ShireSilver]

Yes, they are due to the laws of physics.  There can be only one electric power supplier to every house.  High power cables/wires can't cross each other without interference.  For allowing more than one utility company access to every house, the companies must cooperate to allow for crossings without interfering with the service of the other company.  Why would a company which enjoy a monopoly allow this?  It is not likely, and would be terribly inefficient compared to one cable/line.

LOL, you have the answer right in your response. " the companies must cooperate" And they will if they want to serve customers without the government granting them a monopoly. The same applies to radio frequencies - people will figure out how to share based on their own needs and desires. To think otherwise is to classify them as permanently children.

[sturle]

Yes, they are due to the laws of physics.  There can be only one electric power supplier to every house.  High power cables/wires can't cross each other without interference.  For allowing more than one utility company access to every house, the companies must cooperate to allow for crossings without interfering with the service of the other company.  Why would a company which enjoy a monopoly allow this?  It is not likely, and would be terribly inefficient compared to one cable/line.

LOL, you have the answer right in your response. " the companies must cooperate" And they will if they want to serve customers without the government granting them a monopoly. The same applies to radio frequencies - people will figure out how to share based on their own needs and desires. To think otherwise is to classify them as permanently children.

The government isn't granting power utility companies a monopoly today.  Why should they when it is a natural monopoly?  It is the other way around.  The government's task is to ensure competition despite the natural monopoly.  I.e. make competition possible within a natural monopoly, and thereby making the negative consequences of the natural monopoly as few as possible.  This happens in the Nordic countries, where all power companies are allowed to sell power to all customers, regardless of their utility company.  The U.S. has chosen to regulate the price of power instead, which limits the worst consequences of the monopoly without generating a healthy marketplace for power.

I was very surprised when someone told me on IRC they have blackouts in his part of Texas on warm days due to power shortage.  The utility actually shuts off power to some areas due to shortage!  This would never happen in the Nordic countries.  Here high power consumption only makes the price rise, and more expensive production comes online.  E.g. coal and gas powered plants in Denmark, which then exports to the other countries.

As for radio frequencies -- don't forget that one kid among a million people is enough.  One who won't cooperate.  Like the one in a million who don't want to pay his taxes due to some misguided morals.  I would love it if my wifi reached across the city, and a hundred miles when I crank up the power and widen the frequency band.  And I'll get rid of those noisy aircraft that take off and land a few hundred meters from my house.  Win!  I'll lose TV and radio, but I don't care much about that anyway.

"People will figure out how to share based on their own needs and desires" -- is that Karl Marx, or Friedrich Engels?  Free market competition is all about market competition, and sharing only when it benefits yourself at least as much as the competitor.  In this case there is no way for sharing to benefit yourself.  If you race on a one lane road, you won't come first if you let the car behind you pass.  Cranking up the power and using more of the frequency band benefits yourself.  Yielding to something else only benefits something else.  You haven't lowered the tx power of your own wlan to make a little less radio noise and interference for your neighbour's wlans, have you?  So you are the kid, huh?