Maximum role of Government?

[JA37]

The goal is to make a system based on keeping your hands off of other people and their property unless you have their permission i.e. a system compatible with libertarianism. If that's how you define "better" then we agree.

My point is that it works. It's not perfect but it's a solution and one that's compatible with keeping your hands to yourself.

So you're willing to compromise now. "It's not perfect but it works" is fine when it comes to a libertarian society, but abhorrent when it comes to our current society. As long as it's based on your ideals it doesn't have to be perfect, but if it's not then it should be discarded.
I shouldn't bother you too much about it though, realizing that you have to make compromises is a good first step.

[JA37]

Which is what? I'm curious.

Have a look at the link. The answer's in there.

[NghtRppr]

So you're willing to compromise now.

Nothing about my views have changed. It's rather dishonest to try to frame the discussion as if they have. I've never been interested in achieving your ideal society, only the libertarian ideal society.

I shouldn't bother you too much about it though, realizing that you have to make compromises is a good first step.

I won't compromise libertarianism. Your rhetoric fails.

[myrkul]

So you're willing to compromise now. "It's not perfect but it works" is fine when it comes to a libertarian society, but abhorrent when it comes to our current society. As long as it's based on your ideals it doesn't have to be perfect, but if it's not then it should be discarded.
I shouldn't bother you too much about it though, realizing that you have to make compromises is a good first step.

The principles are what we won't compromise on. hence "principles".

Which is what? I'm curious.

Have a look at the link. The answer's in there.

Underlining and italicizing a set of words doesn't make it a link.

I think you missed the point. The point is, the same solution that works in the USA can also work in a libertarian society.

I got that. I just think that solution is worse than the one adopted by most of the industrialized world.

[FredericBastiat]

In all of my research regarding the law, the proper role of government, and other similar systems, I just can't seem to see the possibility of a perfect anarchy, or left of anarchy, such as some version of libertarianism.

see: http://forum.bitcoin.org/index.php?topic=21217.msg341902#msg341902

Which is to say, if we all played by the obvious rules (do no harm, do as you have agreed to) then society could be perfectly content with an anarchy. That of course, isn't what we have. There are, and always will be criminals, and they will still break the basic tenets of an orderly society. They just can't seem to keep their hands to themselves. So what do we do? The only thing we can. Provide for a means of punishment. Presumably these punishments should be proportional to the crime, but significant enough such that the would-be criminal might think twice about what he/she is about to attempt.

Of course, even that isn't a sufficient enough deterrent for some, but that's the best we can do. As it were, "an eye for an eye" is as close to 'just' as we can get.

So here's the question. Do we let governments compete for the definition of what law is, or do we permit the few (whoever they are) whom we vote in as overseers of this process, and put checks and balances in place so they can't arbitrarily circumvent the basic principles? I think, although I can't be sure, that if we had a menagerie of competing governments, it's likely that they would eventually devolve into feudal waring tribes. I could imagine them each seeking retribution on the other for violations of their societal laws. This would go on forever. It would be nice if there was a universal standard, but even given the rhetoric of these threads/forums, even the basics can't be agreed upon.

[NghtRppr]

In all of my research regarding the law, the proper role of government, and other similar systems, I just can't seem to see the possibility of a perfect anarchy, or left of anarchy, such as some version of libertarianism.

see: http://forum.bitcoin.org/index.php?topic=21217.msg341902#msg341902

Which is to say, if we all played by the obvious rules (do no harm, do as you have agreed to) then society could be perfectly content with an anarchy. That of course, isn't what we have. There are, and always will be criminals and they will still break the basic tenets of a orderly society. They can't keep their hands to themselves. So what do we do? The only thing we can. Provide for a means of punishment. Presumably these punishments should be proportional to the crime, but significant enough such that the would-be criminal might think twice about what he/she is about to attempt.

Of course, even that isn't a sufficient enough deterrent for some, but that's the best we can do. As it were, "an eye for an eye".

So here's the question. Do we let governments compete for the definition of what law is, or do we permit the few (whoever they are) whom we vote in as overseers of this process, and put checks and balances in place so they can't arbitrarily circumvent the basic principles? I think, although I can't be sure, that if we had a menagerie of competing governments, it's likely that they would eventually devolve into feudal waring tribes. I could imagine them each seeking retribution on the other for violations of their societal laws. This would go on forever. It would be nice if there was a universal standard, but even given the rhetoric of these threads/forums, even the basics can't be agreed upon.

Competing jurisdictions. The market will decide the law.

[ascent]

Competing jurisdictions. The market will decide the law.

I guess you still haven't grasped the concept that there needs to be a global standard for managing the environment, which begins where your feet touch the ground locally.

[AyeYo]

In all of my research regarding the law, the proper role of government, and other similar systems, I just can't seem to see the possibility of a perfect anarchy, or left of anarchy, such as some version of libertarianism.

see: http://forum.bitcoin.org/index.php?topic=21217.msg341902#msg341902

Which is to say, if we all played by the obvious rules (do no harm, do as you have agreed to) then society could be perfectly content with an anarchy. That of course, isn't what we have. There are, and always will be criminals and they will still break the basic tenets of a orderly society. They can't keep their hands to themselves. So what do we do? The only thing we can. Provide for a means of punishment. Presumably these punishments should be proportional to the crime, but significant enough such that the would-be criminal might think twice about what he/she is about to attempt.

Of course, even that isn't a sufficient enough deterrent for some, but that's the best we can do. As it were, "an eye for an eye".

So here's the question. Do we let governments compete for the definition of what law is, or do we permit the few (whoever they are) whom we vote in as overseers of this process, and put checks and balances in place so they can't arbitrarily circumvent the basic principles? I think, although I can't be sure, that if we had a menagerie of competing governments, it's likely that they would eventually devolve into feudal waring tribes. I could imagine them each seeking retribution on the other for violations of their societal laws. This would go on forever. It would be nice if there was a universal standard, but even given the rhetoric of these threads/forums, even the basics can't be agreed upon.

That's a pretty good summary of the issues.  Basically, libertarian/anarchy society is trying to DEvolve us back into the state of nature.  It just isn't sustainable because the natural tendancy is to Evolve out of the state of nature.  Thus, it would take a entity using FORCE to keep the world in the state of nature... but alas... then it wouldn't be the state of nature, so it's all an oxymoron anyway.

[myrkul]

Competing jurisdictions. The market will decide the law.

I guess you still haven't grasped the concept that there needs to be a global standard for managing the environment, which begins where your feet touch the ground locally.

Ah! So your agenda is revealed at last. You're a one world government type.

Novus Ordo Seclorum, huh?

[NghtRppr]

I guess you still haven't grasped the concept that there needs to be a global standard for managing the environment, which begins where your feet touch the ground locally.

Ah! So your agenda is revealed at last. You're a one world government type.

At least he's logically consistent. If people need a national government to avoid or mediate interpersonal conflicts then national governments need a world government to avoid or mediate international conflicts. Of course, once we have a worldwide democracy, India and China will run the show.

[AyeYo]

Competing jurisdictions. The market will decide the law.

I guess you still haven't grasped the concept that there needs to be a global standard for managing the environment, which begins where your feet touch the ground locally.

Ah! So your agenda is revealed at last. You're a one world government type.

Novus Ordo Seclorum, huh?

Lickus Mis Scrotum

Know how I know you're 12 years old?

[NghtRppr]

Lickus Mis Scrotum

Know how I you know you're I'm 12 years old?

Because you make childish insults?

[myrkul]

Competing jurisdictions. The market will decide the law.

I guess you still haven't grasped the concept that there needs to be a global standard for managing the environment, which begins where your feet touch the ground locally.

Ah! So your agenda is revealed at last. You're a one world government type.

Novus Ordo Seclorum, huh?

Lickus Mis Scrotum

Know how I know you're 12 years old?

One last time.

Troll Elsewhere.

[Explodicle]

Competing jurisdictions. The market will decide the law.

I guess you still haven't grasped the concept that there needs to be a global standard for managing the environment, which begins where your feet touch the ground locally.

Ah! So your agenda is revealed at last. You're a one world government type.

Novus Ordo Seclorum, huh?

There is no need for such a system, states can negotiate treaties without losing sovereignty. The same can be said for anarchist groups, but it's harder because there are more parties involved. It's a classic Coase theorem example.

Of course now that we have Bitcoin, frictionless automated externality negotiation might be possible, but I'm just daydreaming for now... 

[ascent]

Know how I know you're 12 years old?

He's twelve because he thinks that reciting canned Latin phrases and mantras is the equivalent of engaging in discourse. If one cannot articulate his own point of view and engage in meaningful conversation, and dig deeper into the subject matter, than one usually resorts to a set of scripted responses that add no further information.

[myrkul]

Of course now that we have Bitcoin, frictionless automated externality negotiation might be possible, but I'm just daydreaming for now... 

No, I think you've hit the nail pretty close to on the head. All that is needed is for all the parties to agree on the damage done, and the method of repayment. The Internet and Bitcoin, I think have those problems solved.

[myrkul]

<baseless ad hominem attacks removed> he thinks that reciting canned Latin phrases and mantras is the equivalent of engaging in discourse. If one cannot articulate his own point of view and engage in meaningful conversation, and dig deeper into the subject matter, than one usually resorts to a set of scripted responses that add no further information.

No, I do not believe that 'canned Latin phrases' are the equivalent of engaging in discourse.

Here, for the umpteenth time, I will articulate my point of view:

In order to enforce environmental regulation, you will need to use coercion. This is in violation of my principles, and therefore wrong. If humankind cannot produce a voluntary solution to the environmental issues, then the end result (The earth becoming uninhabitable to people, and so, no more people) is only just.

[AyeYo]

<baseless ad hominem attacks removed> he thinks that reciting canned Latin phrases and mantras is the equivalent of engaging in discourse. If one cannot articulate his own point of view and engage in meaningful conversation, and dig deeper into the subject matter, than one usually resorts to a set of scripted responses that add no further information.

No, I do not believe that 'canned Latin phrases' are the equivalent of engaging in discourse.

Here, for the umpteenth time, I will articulate my point of view:

In order to enforce environmental regulation, you will need to use coercion. This is in violation of my principles, and therefore wrong. If humankind cannot produce a voluntary solution to the environmental issues, then the end result (The earth becoming uninhabitable to people, and so, no more people) is only just.

You too invited to actually justify this view point.

You can sit there like bitcoin2cash does and just state it over and over, but we're only interested in hearing your justification for it and the arguments behind it.

[myrkul]

You too invited to actually justify this view point.

You can sit there like bitcoin2cash does and just state it over and over, but we're only interested in hearing your justification for it and the arguments behind it.

Do me a favor, and justify why murder is wrong. I promise it will not be wasted effort.

[JA37]

In order to enforce environmental regulation, you will need to use coercion. This is in violation of my principles, and therefore wrong. If humankind cannot produce a voluntary solution to the environmental issues, then the end result (The earth becoming uninhabitable to people, and so, no more people) is only just.

So because your principles dictate that nobody can be coerced a few people are free to fuck up everything for everybody else. How is that just?