Maximum role of Government?

[Hawker]

Do tell how a land registry, court system and police to enforce judgements can exist without a state?

The same way you start any other business. What exactly are you having a problem with understanding? It helps if you're a little bit more specific so I don't have to write an entire legal system in response to a single question.

Do you visualise multiple competing land registries, each of which claims to be legitimate and any of which can define whether or not you are the legitimate owner of a property?

[JA37]

That's the theory, but the practice doesn't seem to really hold water.  It's based entirely upon the business model that new drugs are priced at the cost of production plus a portion of the costs of research, which is how it actually works today.  However, there could be, and likely are, better ways to mitigate the financial risks of research.  For example, you never pay for UL testing, producers pay for that.  Why would they do this?  Because their insurance is cheaper.  They either pay UL to test their products for public safety and function, or they pay much more in insurance premiums.  It's a kind of subscription service.  Likewise,  insurance companies, or health care foundations, could fund the research using a subscription model.

No, the drugs are priced based on what the market will pay for them. Nothing else.
Are there better ways of doing things? Yes, I believe there is. Does that mean that the current system doesn't work, like someone stated? Absolutely not.
Is your way? Uncertain. You'll have to come up with a system that works in every country, kind of how patents do today.

[myrkul]

Ever hear of a federated system?

Those multiple competing agencies will all communicate.

[Hawker]

Ever hear of a federated system?

Those multiple competing agencies will all communicate.

We are not talking about agencies.  We are talking about the land registry - the place where property ownership is recorded, where banks register mortgages, where rights of way and liens are listed. 

Do you visualise multiple competing land registries?

[myrkul]

Ever hear of a federated system?

Those multiple competing agencies will all communicate.

We are not talking about agencies.  We are talking about the land registry - the place where property ownership is recorded, where banks register mortgages, where rights of way and liens are listed. 

Do you visualise multiple competing land registries?

As I said, yes, and they will all communicate talk.

[Hawker]

Ever hear of a federated system?

Those multiple competing agencies will all communicate.

We are not talking about agencies.  We are talking about the land registry - the place where property ownership is recorded, where banks register mortgages, where rights of way and liens are listed. 

Do you visualise multiple competing land registries?

As I said, yes, and they will all communicate talk.

Again you are describing agencies that communicate about the contents of a single registry.  Competing registries means that I go to registry 1, register my claim and get a deed that I own the land.  You go to registry 2, register your claim to the same area and get a deed that you own the same land.

Would you agree thats a bad idea?  And that a single registry of ownership is better?

[myrkul]

Ever hear of a federated system?

Those multiple competing agencies will all communicate.

We are not talking about agencies.  We are talking about the land registry - the place where property ownership is recorded, where banks register mortgages, where rights of way and liens are listed. 

Do you visualise multiple competing land registries?

As I said, yes, and they will all communicate talk.

Again you are describing agencies that communicate about the contents of a single registry.  Competing registries means that I go to registry 1, register my claim and get a deed that I own the land.  You go to registry 2, register your claim to the same area and get a deed that you own the same land.

Would you agree thats a bad idea?  And that a single registry of ownership is better?

If I am suggesting multiple agencies that communicate about a single registry. Why are you hung up on disproving a concept I am not suggesting?

Are you that focused on being right?

Fine. Yes, multiple registries is a bad idea. But that does not preclude multiple registrars.

[Hawker]

Ever hear of a federated system?

Those multiple competing agencies will all communicate.

We are not talking about agencies.  We are talking about the land registry - the place where property ownership is recorded, where banks register mortgages, where rights of way and liens are listed. 

Do you visualise multiple competing land registries?

As I said, yes, and they will all communicate talk.

Again you are describing agencies that communicate about the contents of a single registry.  Competing registries means that I go to registry 1, register my claim and get a deed that I own the land.  You go to registry 2, register your claim to the same area and get a deed that you own the same land.

Would you agree thats a bad idea?  And that a single registry of ownership is better?

If I am suggesting multiple agencies that communicate about a single registry. Why are you hung up on disproving a concept I am not suggesting?

Are you that focused on being right?

Fine. Yes, multiple registries is a bad idea. But that does not preclude multiple registrars.

So we are agreed you need have 1 land ownership registry.  To arbitrate disputes about ownership, you will need a court system and it will need police to enforce decisions like re-possessions.

Sounds like you are rebuilding the state one basic right at a time

[NghtRppr]

Do you visualise multiple competing land registries, each of which claims to be legitimate and any of which can define whether or not you are the legitimate owner of a property?

That's for the market to decide. There's nothing preventing that from happening.

There's several different agencies I can register my pure breed dog with, each with different advantages.

[myrkul]

So we are agreed you need have 1 land ownership registry.  To arbitrate disputes about ownership, you will need a court system and it will need police to enforce decisions like re-possessions.

Sounds like you are rebuilding the state one basic right at a time

A-hyuk a-hyuk... you got the stoopid yank thar... huh huh huh.

A land database is is just that. a database. You can have competing courts (called arbitration agencies) and police forces (called security firms) without a state. I'm not saying we don't need the services. I am saying we don't need the monopoly that currently provides those services.

[Hawker]

So we are agreed you need have 1 land ownership registry.  To arbitrate disputes about ownership, you will need a court system and it will need police to enforce decisions like re-possessions.

Sounds like you are rebuilding the state one basic right at a time

A-hyuk a-hyuk... you got the stoopid yank thar... huh huh huh.

A land database is is just that. a database. You can have competing courts (called arbitration agencies) and police forces (called security firms) without a state. I'm not saying we don't need the services. I am saying we don't need the monopoly that currently provides those services.

Arbitration agencies can only compete if there is a single set of laws for them to follow.  If you have a single set of laws you have a state. 

[NghtRppr]

Arbitration agencies can only compete if there is a single set of laws for them to follow.  If you have a single set of laws you have a state.

What makes a state a state is its involuntary nature. There's nothing wrong with everyone voluntarily agreeing not to wear hats or anything else that isn't a violation of rights. The voluntary aspect is the key. Why are you so eager to have something called a state anyways? What are you after other than trying to prove libertarians wrong?

[Hawker]

Arbitration agencies can only compete if there is a single set of laws for them to follow.  If you have a single set of laws you have a state.

What makes a state a state is its involuntary nature. There's nothing wrong with everyone voluntarily agreeing not to wear hats or anything else that isn't a violation of rights. The voluntary aspect is the key. Why are you so eager to have something called a state anyways? What are you after other than trying to prove libertarians wrong?

Of course its involuntary.  If 2 reasonable adults have a legitimate dispute as to ownership of a bit of land and a court decided one of them is the true owner, the loser can't say "I am opting out of this involuntary state" and keep the land.

[myrkul]

Arbitration agencies can only compete if there is a single set of laws for them to follow.  If you have a single set of laws you have a state.

What makes a state a state is its involuntary nature. There's nothing wrong with everyone voluntarily agreeing not to wear hats or anything else that isn't a violation of rights. The voluntary aspect is the key. Why are you so eager to have something called a state anyways? What are you after other than trying to prove libertarians wrong?

Of course its involuntary.  If 2 reasonable adults have a legitimate dispute as to ownership of a bit of land and a court decided one of them is the true owner, the loser can't say "I am opting out of this involuntary state" and keep the land.

Well, you're half right (I've bolded it). The loser can't opt out, because he voluntarily signed an agreement to abide by the court's decision.

[Hawker]

Arbitration agencies can only compete if there is a single set of laws for them to follow.  If you have a single set of laws you have a state.

What makes a state a state is its involuntary nature. There's nothing wrong with everyone voluntarily agreeing not to wear hats or anything else that isn't a violation of rights. The voluntary aspect is the key. Why are you so eager to have something called a state anyways? What are you after other than trying to prove libertarians wrong?

Of course its involuntary.  If 2 reasonable adults have a legitimate dispute as to ownership of a bit of land and a court decided one of them is the true owner, the loser can't say "I am opting out of this involuntary state" and keep the land.

Well, you're half right (I've bolded it). The loser can't opt out, because he voluntarily signed an agreement to abide by the court's decision.

No - you can't assume the loser signed an agreement to abide by the court's decision.  Many of these disputes arise after a death and are about inheritances. 

Anyway, think through the logic of your position.  The court is interpreting the law.  And the law means there is a state. 

[myrkul]

No - you can't assume the loser signed an agreement to abide by the court's decision.  Many of these disputes arise after a death and are about inheritances. 

Anyway, think through the logic of your position.  The court is interpreting the law.  And the law means there is a state. 

No. the law is right here (And it's the only one needed): The Non-aggression principle

[Hawker]

No - you can't assume the loser signed an agreement to abide by the court's decision.  Many of these disputes arise after a death and are about inheritances. 

Anyway, think through the logic of your position.  The court is interpreting the law.  And the law means there is a state. 

No. the law is right here (And it's the only one needed): The Non-aggression principle

Thats an abstract ideal - like religion of the Declaration of Independence.  No state needed for that.

But you need a lot more than that to resolve a property dispute.  You need inheritance laws, laws that cover rights of way, mortgages and so on.  That does need a set of laws and the entity that enforces those laws is called a state.

[myrkul]

Thats an abstract ideal - like religion of the Declaration of Independence.  No state needed for that.

But you need a lot more than that to resolve a property dispute.  You need inheritance laws, laws that cover rights of way, mortgages and so on.  That does need a set of laws and the entity that enforces those laws is called a state.

No, you really don't.

[Hawker]

Thats an abstract ideal - like religion of the Declaration of Independence.  No state needed for that.

But you need a lot more than that to resolve a property dispute.  You need inheritance laws, laws that cover rights of way, mortgages and so on.  That does need a set of laws and the entity that enforces those laws is called a state.

No, you really don't.

From your article: "Anarchists use this argument in their attempts to convert other libertarians to their views, while opponents of libertarianism use it to support the claim that consistent application of libertarian principles would result in the complete abolition of the state - which, in their view, is an extremist and absurd position to hold."

Your position is indeed absurd.  I can see why you don't believe it will ever win popular support. 

[myrkul]

I admire you for trying so hard to defend such an outlandish position

It's kind of sad that keeping your hands to yourself is seen as "outlandish".

Or in this case, 'absurd'