Maximum role of Government?

[myrkul]

How do I know if my life is in danger?

This one?

That's one of the main moral quandaries in any society. It's a judgment call, and if you make the right decision, good. If, after the fact, it turns out you did not, well, you have to pay the piper.

Example: A police officer sees a shadowy figure raise what appears to be a gun and point it at him. Does he shoot? What if it's a kid with a squirtgun? or a stick? What if it's an escaped criminal, with a sawed-off shotgun? Cop can't be sure, so he has to make a judgment call. If he chooses wrong, he has to pay the consequences of his actions.

[1713523151]

1713523151

[1713523151]

1713523151

[1713523151]

1713523151

[1713523151]

1713523151

[1713523151]

1713523151

[FredericBastiat]

Private roads.

Your choice:

• take the one that requires a breathalyzer test to get on,
• take the one that has armed patrols,
• or take the one that lets anybody on and drive however they want.

It's about time someone actually answered a "loaded" question the right way. Which is to say, who owns the road? If you do, and you allow any type of driving including questionable behaviour of the "endangerment kind", then when or if you are harmed, your only restitution may be after the fact. However, it is your road, so whoever uses it (under private agreement), takes upon him the physical liabilities (as assumed by the parties) for any and all accidents that befall him/her. In any case, it would be reasonable to believe - and feasible - that you could also make a road you owned restricted under a number of different circumstances and hence contract. Any one of which could employ speed limits, impaired driving penalties and the like.

We seem to think this is rocket science. It isn't. If you injure or about to imminently injure someone, there should be a proportional punishment. Geez. Admittedly my physics arguments do fall short when trying to incorporate imminent threat, as no harm has come to you until just after the purported crime. Something I've given much thought to, but just can't get a grasp on.

[AyeYo]

Private roads.

Your choice:

• take the one that requires a breathalyzer test to get on,
• take the one that has armed patrols,
• or take the one that lets anybody on and drive however they want.

It's about time someone actually answered a "loaded" question the right way. Which is to say, who owns the road? If you do, and you allow any type of driving including questionable behaviour of the "endangerment kind", then when or if you are harmed, your only restitution may be after the fact. However, it is your road, so whoever uses it (under private agreement), takes upon him the physical liabilities (as assumed by the parties) for any and all accidents that befall him/her. In any case, it would be reasonable to believe - and feasible - that you could also make a road you owned restricted under a number of different circumstances and hence contract. Any one of which could employ speed limits, impaired driving penalties and the like.

That's perfectly reasonable. 

As it turns out, the government owns the roads right now and it says you can't drive drunk on them, you can't drive over the set speed limits, and you have to pay a gas tax to support their maintenance.  So, actually, our current system seems to be right in line with non-coercion land.  Tell me again where you took issue with it?

[myrkul]

Private roads.

Your choice:

• take the one that requires a breathalyzer test to get on,
• take the one that has armed patrols,
• or take the one that lets anybody on and drive however they want.

It's about time someone actually answered a "loaded" question the right way. Which is to say, who owns the road? If you do, and you allow any type of driving including questionable behaviour of the "endangerment kind", then when or if you are harmed, your only restitution may be after the fact. However, it is your road, so whoever uses it (under private agreement), takes upon him the physical liabilities (as assumed by the parties) for any and all accidents that befall him/her. In any case, it would be reasonable to believe - and feasible - that you could also make a road you owned restricted under a number of different circumstances and hence contract. Any one of which could employ speed limits, impaired driving penalties and the like.

That's perfectly reasonable. 

As it turns out, the government owns the roads right now and it says you can't drive drunk on them, you can't drive over the set speed limits, and you have to pay a gas tax to support their maintenance.  So, actually, our current system seems to be right in line with non-coercion land.  Tell me again where you took issue with it?

Right here.

[ascent]

In nutcase land, we wouldn't be able to stop drunk driving.  Driving while utterly blasted would be perfectly legal.

Only on roads that allow it, which would be absolutely no roads or very few. Would you go to a bar that allowed someone to stab you? Then why would you drive on a road that allowed drunks to smash into you?

Three common flaws of statists on these forums:

1. Extreme deficit in civility/maturity.
2. Terminal lack of imagination.
3. Inflated sense of entitlement.

As a nod to your Libertarian principles, I have decided to impose the following fee structure to guarantee certain behaviors on my part:

• Upon payment of 1.0 BTC, I promise to remain civil to you in any post that either is in direct reply to you or follows a post of yours with no more than two intervening posts for the duration of the calendar month.
• At anytime, you may pay 0.1 BTC to guarantee that my next post after your payment will not denigrate you in any way.
• I promise to decrease my terminal lack of imagination in any posts of mine for the duration of the day upon payment of 0.2 BTC.
• I will partially deflate my sense of entitlement for the calendar week in any posts I make in a thread in which you have already posted upon receiving a payment from you in the amount of 0.3 BTC.

If I determine that you have used the terms 'NAP', "Non Aggression Principle", or have made any statements in which a Latin phrase is used, then all promises are nullified regardless of payments made. Furthermore, since I choose not to be regulated by any agency with regard to the above arrangements, make payments at your own risk. No refunds will be given.

AyeYo, JA37, and others may put in place similar fee structures, but their details may differ.

Please make your payment to the address in my signature.

[myrkul]

As a nod to your Libertarian principles, I have decided to impose the following fee structure to guarantee certain behaviors on my part:

• Upon payment of 1.0 BTC, I promise to remain civil to you in any post that either is in direct reply to you or follows a post of yours with no more than two intervening posts for the duration of the calendar month.
• At anytime, you may pay 0.1 BTC to guarantee that my next post after your payment will not denigrate you in any way.
• I promise to decrease my terminal lack of imagination in any posts of mine for the duration of the day upon payment of 0.2 BTC.
• I will partially deflate my sense of entitlement for the calendar week in any posts I make in a thread in which you have already posted upon receiving a payment from you in the amount of 0.3 BTC.

If I determine that you have used the terms 'NAP', "Non Aggression Principle", or have made any statements in which a Latin phrase is used, then all promises are nullified regardless of payments made. Furthermore, since I choose not to be regulated by any agency with regard to the above arrangements, make payments at your own risk. No refunds will be given.

AyeYo, JA37, and others may put in place similar fee structures, but their details may differ.

Please make your payment to the address in my signature.

Troll of the year award.

[ascent]

As a nod to your Libertarian principles, I have decided to impose the following fee structure to guarantee certain behaviors on my part:

• Upon payment of 1.0 BTC, I promise to remain civil to you in any post that either is in direct reply to you or follows a post of yours with no more than two intervening posts for the duration of the calendar month.
• At anytime, you may pay 0.1 BTC to guarantee that my next post after your payment will not denigrate you in any way.
• I promise to decrease my terminal lack of imagination in any posts of mine for the duration of the day upon payment of 0.2 BTC.
• I will partially deflate my sense of entitlement for the calendar week in any posts I make in a thread in which you have already posted upon receiving a payment from you in the amount of 0.3 BTC.

If I determine that you have used the terms 'NAP', "Non Aggression Principle", or have made any statements in which a Latin phrase is used, then all promises are nullified regardless of payments made. Furthermore, since I choose not to be regulated by any agency with regard to the above arrangements, make payments at your own risk. No refunds will be given.

AyeYo, JA37, and others may put in place similar fee structures, but their details may differ.

Please make your payment to the address in my signature.

Troll of the year award.

But that's how you want the world to be.

[myrkul]

As a nod to your Libertarian principles, I have decided to impose the following fee structure to guarantee certain behaviors on my part:

• Upon payment of 1.0 BTC, I promise to remain civil to you in any post that either is in direct reply to you or follows a post of yours with no more than two intervening posts for the duration of the calendar month.
• At anytime, you may pay 0.1 BTC to guarantee that my next post after your payment will not denigrate you in any way.
• I promise to decrease my terminal lack of imagination in any posts of mine for the duration of the day upon payment of 0.2 BTC.
• I will partially deflate my sense of entitlement for the calendar week in any posts I make in a thread in which you have already posted upon receiving a payment from you in the amount of 0.3 BTC.

If I determine that you have used the terms 'NAP', "Non Aggression Principle", or have made any statements in which a Latin phrase is used, then all promises are nullified regardless of payments made. Furthermore, since I choose not to be regulated by any agency with regard to the above arrangements, make payments at your own risk. No refunds will be given.

AyeYo, JA37, and others may put in place similar fee structures, but their details may differ.

Please make your payment to the address in my signature.

Troll of the year award.

But that's how you want the world to be.

Indeed it is. And, adhering my principles, I choose not to agree to the terms above specified, and therefore chose to cease speaking with you. Also, as this is my thread, I ask that you not post in it unless someone has paid you to do so.

[FredericBastiat]

That's perfectly reasonable.  

As it turns out, the government owns the roads right now and it says you can't drive drunk on them, you can't drive over the set speed limits, and you have to pay a gas tax to support their maintenance.  So, actually, our current system seems to be right in line with non-coercion land.  Tell me again where you took issue with it?

I do take issue. But first I'll answer your question with a question. Who is this "government", or "state", or "locality", or force-to-be-reckoned-with?

It seems we conflate private association with forced association. How did the government come by this property they created a road with? Was it point of a gun, coersion, paid with out of the "public" treasury?

The definition of non-coercion land has to be one in which you negotiated with another man (collectively or individually) sans force to exchange what you have for what he has. And if you haven't induced or incentivized the other individual to part with his property, you must leave him be.

Last I checked greater than 90% of all lands used for roads had been acquired thru extortion and expropriation. It's a little legal concept they call "emminent domain" and there isn't anything non-coercive about it. It is theft and plunder thru and thru.

Physics rules.

[AyeYo]

Private roads.

Your choice:

• take the one that requires a breathalyzer test to get on,
• take the one that has armed patrols,
• or take the one that lets anybody on and drive however they want.

It's about time someone actually answered a "loaded" question the right way. Which is to say, who owns the road? If you do, and you allow any type of driving including questionable behaviour of the "endangerment kind", then when or if you are harmed, your only restitution may be after the fact. However, it is your road, so whoever uses it (under private agreement), takes upon him the physical liabilities (as assumed by the parties) for any and all accidents that befall him/her. In any case, it would be reasonable to believe - and feasible - that you could also make a road you owned restricted under a number of different circumstances and hence contract. Any one of which could employ speed limits, impaired driving penalties and the like.

That's perfectly reasonable. 

As it turns out, the government owns the roads right now and it says you can't drive drunk on them, you can't drive over the set speed limits, and you have to pay a gas tax to support their maintenance.  So, actually, our current system seems to be right in line with non-coercion land.  Tell me again where you took issue with it?

Right here.

That's what I figured.  You're just scared of the word government.  If it's the EXACT same type of entity with the EXACT same issues that yields the EXACT same results, but under the title "business", then you're perfectly ok with it.  So you position boils down to semantics are simple hate for the government and love for the free market, no matter what the government and the free market are or actually do.  That's what I've known all along, thanks for confirming.

[AyeYo]

As a nod to your Libertarian principles, I have decided to impose the following fee structure to guarantee certain behaviors on my part:

• Upon payment of 1.0 BTC, I promise to remain civil to you in any post that either is in direct reply to you or follows a post of yours with no more than two intervening posts for the duration of the calendar month.
• At anytime, you may pay 0.1 BTC to guarantee that my next post after your payment will not denigrate you in any way.
• I promise to decrease my terminal lack of imagination in any posts of mine for the duration of the day upon payment of 0.2 BTC.
• I will partially deflate my sense of entitlement for the calendar week in any posts I make in a thread in which you have already posted upon receiving a payment from you in the amount of 0.3 BTC.

If I determine that you have used the terms 'NAP', "Non Aggression Principle", or have made any statements in which a Latin phrase is used, then all promises are nullified regardless of payments made. Furthermore, since I choose not to be regulated by any agency with regard to the above arrangements, make payments at your own risk. No refunds will be given.

AyeYo, JA37, and others may put in place similar fee structures, but their details may differ.

Please make your payment to the address in my signature.

Troll of the year award.

But that's how you want the world to be.

Indeed it is. And, adhering my principles, I choose not to agree to the terms above specified, and therefore chose to cease speaking with you. Also, as this is my thread, I ask that you not post in it unless someone has paid you to do so.

LOL  And you're going to enforce that how?

[NghtRppr]

If it's the EXACT same type of entity with the EXACT same issues that yields the EXACT same results, but under the title "business", then you're perfectly ok with it.

That's because you can't get it through your head that we're not hung up on the consequences. If respecting property rights winds up with the exact same results then so be it. The difference is that it will be a property owner setting rules for his or her own property rather than the government expropriating it and making up rules for stolen property.

However, I know this will be a shock to you, since road owners want to make a profit and the way to make a profit is to compete for customers by giving them quality services at lower prices, it's more likely that we will end up with what we want. Imagine that. We can get what we want and not steal while doing it!

[myrkul]

That's what I figured.  You're just scared of the word government.  If it's the EXACT same type of entity with the EXACT same issues that yields the EXACT same results, but under the title "business", then you're perfectly ok with it.  So you position boils down to semantics are simple hate for the government and love for the free market, no matter what the government and the free market are or actually do.  That's what I've known all along, thanks for confirming.

Private property versus stolen property.

Voluntary funding versus stolen money.

[ascent]

Private property versus stolen property.

Voluntary funding versus stolen money.

You're forgetting a few:

Punctured rafts due to knife jugglers.

People eaten by sharks due to NAP.

Destroyed ecosystem due to reactive justice.

[myrkul]

Private property versus stolen property.

Voluntary funding versus stolen money.

You're forgetting a few:

I don't recall yanking your chain.

[billyjoeallen]

If the government provided any services worth paying for, they wouldn't have to force us to buy them.
Smash the State!

[indio007]

The STATE doesn't own the roads. The roads are an easement for the use of everyone equally . Even foreigners. Everyone has the right to private quiet enjoyment but that is it. Travelers can not endanger others so as to cause a nuisance per se.
The absolute right in the easement known as the highway is vested in the unorganized public. However the organized public aka the body politic acts in the unorganized public interest by their own prescription.

From Corpus Juris

[FredericBastiat]

The STATE doesn't own the roads. The roads are an easement for the use of everyone equally . Even foreigners. Everyone has the right to private quiet enjoyment but that is it. Travelers can not endanger others so as to cause a nuisance per se.
The absolute right in the easement known as the highway is vested in the unorganized public. However the organized public aka the body politic acts in the unorganized public interest by their own prescription.

Okay. I'll follow this line of reasoning just for kicks and giggles. Let's say that no one individual owns the road exclusively. So what? That means now everyone shares a partial ownership in the road, or "easement". Again, so what? That would basically mean the road is part-owned by everyone, right? I'm not sure what portion or in what way each individual would make his "rightful claim" but then it would just be a matter of sorting things out I would think. If you can't sort it out, it would basically fall into the category of homesteadable unclaimed land. There isn't an owner, so why not you, or me, or that "other" guy over there, who might want to make a business out of toll road fees. No one should complain that the road was "staked and claimed". You didn't step up and make a claim to it, so why not the guy who's interested in doing something with it? Or in other words, no one owns it and we just use it as we deem fit until things change. Notwithstanding, this temporary state of "unownership" could not demand forceful intervention for maintenance purposes (or any other similar coercive purpose). That would imply a condition of ownership. You either own it and defend it against trespass, or it remains commonly utilized by all -no more owned than the stars in the sky could be appropriated.

Obviously, no one has a specific right to travel on another man's property without permission. This would be trespass. He may attempt to travel on un-homesteaded land, but that would be the only right he would have, and even then, it would only be temporary until someone wanted to own it. Then he couldn't arbitrarily traverse it, because he didn't acquire it first, and make it exclusive to himself or his assigns. Let's not get caught up in all of the vague verbiage (government, state, "unorganized public"). This merely clouds the issue. And here's why.

If the "unorganized public" wants to fix/improve/reroute the road they apparently jointly own, then they, and only they could expend their effort, money, assets, resources and other what-have-you to improve this "easement" of their own free will. They could not of a natural right, force, expropriate, tax, extort, coerce (I think you get my drift here) from others to achieve this end. If others travel on your road, then they must get permission to use it. If you improve the road, but still not claim it as your own, you shouldn't be upset if others travel on it. You improved it out of the charity of your heart I guess.

Is this a little more clear? We don't need lawyers and legislators making definitions as to what a "highway" or "road" or "easement" is, but we should merely examine who is the rightful owner of such things. I'm trying to keep things simple here. John Locke said, the appearance of property has the distinction of labor mixed with something in Nature. It had to appear to be changed from its natural state when man intervened. If that's the case, I want to see who owns the deed or title, and if there is none, I'll take it.

Last but not least, if the government doesn't own it, then why are they forcing me to pay for its construction, maintenance and improvement?

[The Script]

To find out who truly owns something, ask yourself this question:  Who makes the decisions in regard to the property? Who is the ultimate decision maker and who has the power to destroy it?

[JA37]

How do I know if my life is in danger?

This one?

No, not that one.
Why is one person allowed to put a lot of others at risk with his actions, and why are they not allowed to stop him?