Free markets and social problems:

[Automagic]

Hawker, I believe you are conflating law with the State. Law can and has existed without the State. You do need law in order to have property rights. You are correct in saying that, but I don't think you are correct to assume that without a State there can be no law. Whether law under a State is more just, or efficient or desirable is a different argument.

[1714834190]

1714834190

[1714834190]

1714834190

[1714834190]

1714834190

[Hawker]

Your say that recognition of property rights is voluntary and doesn't need a state.  I am pointing out that property rights are created by states - they don't exist without a legal enforcement system.  When I say this you start your "slavery theft oppression" schtick.

Do you accept that enforceable property rights are a legal creation?  Yes or No?

I accept that property rights are a "legal construction" insofar as one person recognizes that the property not in his possession, or within his control, is not his/theirs, and should not be infringed; and should he/they infringe, restitution may be the consequence.

The word legal has been abused and misconstrued so much, it has practically lost it's meaning. I prefer the words and/or phrases 'force' (physics domain), 'mutual consent', and 'private contract'. It makes you think a little harder about the legislative consequences of your actions.

How one goes about enforcing that is an entirely different matter altogether. A 'state' may accomplish this to some extent, but so can anybody else smart enough to provide the same service. You're arguing possible vs. impossible, instead of should vs. could.

I'm not arguing - I'm pointing to facts.  Property rights are created by the state.  I don't know if you have ever been divorced, but should you suffer that misfortune you come to see very clearly that saying "I own this" means nothing at all unless you can say "I legally own this."  Even then, your ex gets to take a share of it off you.  

In the real world, many people do not "mutually consent" to having their houses taken off them and given to an ex-spouse.  Its not voluntary.  You don't get to "opt out" and and find someone else to make a different decision.  Property rights are legal rights created by the state and to have property you have to to have a state to enforce the rights that come with it.

[FredericBastiat]

There is nothing hard to understand about that. However, the burden falls upon you to persuasively argue and demonstrate that your way of doing things would actually work. It frankly sounds flimsy, and your philosophical ramblings on the subject only seem to touch on your insistence that it should be that way, without ever actually making it sound like it would believably work.

Furthermore, every time you mention the word slavery or something similar, you deserve to be not listened to. Hyperbole makes your case weaker, not stronger.

I may have a somewhat flimsy way of expressing what I think is freedom (it's much simpler than everything else I've seen or read) and how it could be a achieved, but I'm absolutely appalled and disgusted at the way government currently functions.

And besides, since when should I be burdened with demonstrating to some political authoritarian that I deserve my freedom? He certainly doesn't afford me the same (quid pro quo). It's a two-way street, otherwise you're merely overpowering me (force majeure) because you can, not because you should. Where's the logic in that?

I'll make you a deal. You stop using the words 'state' and 'government' and I'll stop using the words 'slave' and 'master'. Fair enough?

[Hawker]

Hawker, I believe you are conflating law with the State. Law can and has existed without the State. You do need law in order to have property rights. You are correct in saying that, but I don't think you are correct to assume that without a State there can be no law. Whether law under a State is more just, or efficient or desirable is a different argument.

I know someone who went to jail rather than give up her house as part of a bitter divorce.  The courts said it was not her house and when she refused to leave, she was arrested.  That is how property rights work - if you don't accept them you go to jail.  That requires a state.

[Automagic]

Hawker, I believe you are conflating law with the State. Law can and has existed without the State. You do need law in order to have property rights. You are correct in saying that, but I don't think you are correct to assume that without a State there can be no law. Whether law under a State is more just, or efficient or desirable is a different argument.

I know someone who went to jail rather than give up her house as part of a bitter divorce.  The courts said it was not her house and when she refused to leave, she was arrested.  That is how property rights work - if you don't accept them you go to jail.  That requires a state.

Can courts only exist with a state? Why or why not?

[Hawker]

Hawker, I believe you are conflating law with the State. Law can and has existed without the State. You do need law in order to have property rights. You are correct in saying that, but I don't think you are correct to assume that without a State there can be no law. Whether law under a State is more just, or efficient or desirable is a different argument.

I know someone who went to jail rather than give up her house as part of a bitter divorce.  The courts said it was not her house and when she refused to leave, she was arrested.  That is how property rights work - if you don't accept them you go to jail.  That requires a state.

Can courts only exist with a state? Why or why not?

A court enforces the law.  It uses a police force to enforce the law. A lot of disputes are over trivial matters, like petty theft, so the courts cannot depend on fees to support the judges, admin, police and prisons.  Historically, courts and jails have been funded by taxation to get around this.  Taxation really requires a state if you are going to have taxes get democratic approval.

[FirstAscent]

And besides, since when should I be burdened with demonstrating to some political authoritarian that I deserve my freedom?

I'm not asking you to be burdened with demonstrating that you deserve freedom. I'm asking you to demonstrate how your solution will actually result in freedom.

I'll make you a deal. You stop using the words 'state' and 'government' and I'll stop using the words 'slave' and 'master'. Fair enough?

That's fine, as I don't really use the word state or government much - certainly I use those terms much less than you do.

[FredericBastiat]

I'm not arguing - I'm pointing to facts.  Property rights are created by the state.  I don't know if you have ever been divorced, but should you suffer that misfortune you come to see very clearly that saying "I own this" means nothing at all unless you can say "I legally own this."  Even then, your ex gets to take a share of it off you.  

In the real world, many people do not "mutually consent" to having their houses taken off them and given to an ex-spouse.  Its not voluntary.  You don't get to "opt out" and and find someone else to make a different decision.  Property rights are legal rights created by the state and to have property you have to to have a state to enforce the rights that come with it.

You are arguing, and you are not using facts. Laws are not facts. The actions that result from the execution of said laws are facts (observables). Laws are 'is-ought' constructs. To put it another way, laws are reified extrinsic objects (abstract concepts). If you need a dictionary, I'll wait.

I merely point out the illogicality of the interpretation of laws the state attempts to impose upon their subjects (personal freedom is remotely considered). Most of it is senseless drivel. You gave a perfect example of the aforementioned drivel. Thanks for driving the point home.

[Bind]

What philosophical bullshit in this thread.

Government creates whatever laws they want, constitutional or unconstitutional, right or wrong, then they are enforced, then if it goes to the supreme court, the highest court in the land and the supposed last bastion of protection for the people, they hand down unconstitiontal opinion, and state their opinions are unconstitutional, when they are sworn to protect the people and protect the constitution.

Case in point ... police checkpoints and DUI stops. In their opinion the supreme court ruled, with dissenting opinion, that the overall collective good the checkpoints and dui stops do over-rides their minor constituional infringements.

Another prime example of government thinking the constitution is a worthless god damn piece of paper is the president ordering the assassination murder of american citizens without any due process, like some Star Chamber group of people in a back room somewhere doing what they want to whoever they want, when they want, however they want to do it just because they; can, are above the law, and they want to do it.

Hello? Is there anyone home ?

It boils down to force and it will come down to force and a war to get any freedom.

Pick a side.

[Automagic]

Hawker, I believe you are conflating law with the State. Law can and has existed without the State. You do need law in order to have property rights. You are correct in saying that, but I don't think you are correct to assume that without a State there can be no law. Whether law under a State is more just, or efficient or desirable is a different argument.

I know someone who went to jail rather than give up her house as part of a bitter divorce.  The courts said it was not her house and when she refused to leave, she was arrested.  That is how property rights work - if you don't accept them you go to jail.  That requires a state.

Can courts only exist with a state? Why or why not?

A court enforces the law.  It uses a police force to enforce the law. A lot of disputes are over trivial matters, like petty theft, so the courts cannot depend on fees to support the judges, admin, police and prisons. Historically, courts and jails have been funded by taxation to get around this.  Taxation really requires a state if you are going to have taxes get democratic approval.

Is that a "no, courts cannot exist without state"?

[FredericBastiat]

I'm not asking you to be burdened with demonstrating that you deserve freedom. I'm asking you to demonstrate how your solution will actually result in freedom.

I'll make you a deal. You stop using the words 'state' and 'government' and I'll stop using the words 'slave' and 'master'. Fair enough?

That's fine, as I don't really use the word state or government much - certainly I use those terms much less than you do.

And if I don't demonstrate an actual "suitable" solution (whatever that may be)? What then? I still have to remain under your "democratic" iron-fisted rule? If we're going to pretend to be gentlemen here, let's try to be a little more subtle with the authoritarian overtones. It's the least you could do. Fool me once, shame on me...

If you don't use the <bleep> words directly, you certainly imply their utility. I can use substitutes all the day long too. It's called semantics. It's all the same to me. It seems you prefer an involuntary ruling organization, to one that requires consensual agreement. See how I did that? Sneaky huh? Let's stop playing games and get down to the brass tacks for once.

[Hawker]

I'm not arguing - I'm pointing to facts.  Property rights are created by the state.  I don't know if you have ever been divorced, but should you suffer that misfortune you come to see very clearly that saying "I own this" means nothing at all unless you can say "I legally own this."  Even then, your ex gets to take a share of it off you.  

In the real world, many people do not "mutually consent" to having their houses taken off them and given to an ex-spouse.  Its not voluntary.  You don't get to "opt out" and and find someone else to make a different decision.  Property rights are legal rights created by the state and to have property you have to to have a state to enforce the rights that come with it.

You are arguing, and you are not using facts. Laws are not facts. The actions that result from the execution of said laws are facts (observables). Laws are 'is-ought' constructs. To put it another way, laws are reified extrinsic objects (abstract concepts). If you need a dictionary, I'll wait.

I merely point out the illogicality of the interpretation of laws the state attempts to impose upon their subjects (personal freedom is remotely considered). Most of it is senseless drivel. You gave a perfect example of the aforementioned drivel. Thanks for driving the point home.

Actually Fred, thats a new line for you.  What do you care if the interpretation of law is illogical when you don't acknowledge the lawgiver is legitimate in the first place?

Property rights are legal rights created by the state and to have property you have to to have a state to enforce the rights that come with it.  If you have a better system with examples of where it works, great. Right now you are just being boring.

[Hawker]

Hawker, I believe you are conflating law with the State. Law can and has existed without the State. You do need law in order to have property rights. You are correct in saying that, but I don't think you are correct to assume that without a State there can be no law. Whether law under a State is more just, or efficient or desirable is a different argument.

I know someone who went to jail rather than give up her house as part of a bitter divorce.  The courts said it was not her house and when she refused to leave, she was arrested.  That is how property rights work - if you don't accept them you go to jail.  That requires a state.

Can courts only exist with a state? Why or why not?

A court enforces the law.  It uses a police force to enforce the law. A lot of disputes are over trivial matters, like petty theft, so the courts cannot depend on fees to support the judges, admin, police and prisons. Historically, courts and jails have been funded by taxation to get around this.  Taxation really requires a state if you are going to have taxes get democratic approval.

Is that a "no, courts cannot exist without state"?

A system of independent courts, police and prisons cannot exist without a state.  I understand some Islamic tribes have a "court of elders" type system but that isn't really a court with a legal system as we know it.

[FredericBastiat]

Actually Fred, thats a new line for you.  What do you care if the interpretation of law is illogical when you don't acknowledge the lawgiver is legitimate in the first place?

Property rights are legal rights created by the state and to have property you have to to have a state to enforce the rights that come with it.  If you have a better system with examples of where it works, great. Right now you are just being boring.

I do care about the interpretation of law and any of its attendant logical outcomes. I'll accept any ruling, from any lawgiver, in any place, and at any time should he/she/they properly apply the non-aggression principle. Every time.

How you like them apples?

Your statist rant is going nowhere. Repeating it oft, doesn't give it legitimacy any more than a hoard of invading mercenaries plundering the same town every day for a year is justifiable. Might makes right is so last millennia. Try to pretend to be a little more enlightened instead of an authoritarian whore puppet.

[Hawker]

Actually Fred, thats a new line for you.  What do you care if the interpretation of law is illogical when you don't acknowledge the lawgiver is legitimate in the first place?

Property rights are legal rights created by the state and to have property you have to to have a state to enforce the rights that come with it.  If you have a better system with examples of where it works, great. Right now you are just being boring.

I do care about the interpretation of law and any of its attendant logical outcomes. I'll accept any ruling, from any lawgiver, in any place, and at any time should he/she/they properly apply the non-aggression principle. Every time.

How you like them apples?

Your statist rant is going nowhere. Repeating it oft, doesn't give it legitimacy any more than a hoard of invading mercenaries plundering the same town every day for a year is justifiable. Might makes right is so last millennia. Try to pretend to be a little more enlightened instead of an authoritarian whore puppet.

Still stuck aren't you? No state means no legal system so there would be no law to obey.  Your non-aggression principle is only an aspiration - if you have a real life family dispute with real people who refuse to compromise, it takes force to settle it.  Complaining that force isn't legitimate doesn't get around the fact that there are people who can only be dealt with by force.

[FirstAscent]

He never explains what force forces one to comply with NAP.

[Hawker]

He never explains what force forces one to comply with NAP.

He can't.  In every legal action where you take what someone considers their property, you need the backing of force to do it peacefully. 

[FredericBastiat]

When did either of you last read the NAP?

For reference lest you forgot, or are complete bozos.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-aggression_principle

In dispute resolution, sometimes it requires force to resolve an issue. Ultimately, having to use force is never peaceful, just necessary betimes. Duh.

Never said you couldn't use it, just when. The when, why, how much, and applied to whom, should be at the root of the issue. Don't act so ignorant, it's unbecoming. We should all aspire to the NAP including you and your precious authoritarian elitists. The world would be a better place.

Another quote to stoke the fire:

"The harm done by ordinary criminals, gangsters, and thieves is negligible in comparison with the agony inflicted upon human beings by the professional "do-gooders", who attempt to set themselves up as gods on earth and who would ruthlessly force their views on all others - with the abiding assurance that that the ends justify the means." -- Henry Grady Weaver.

[FirstAscent]

Never said you couldn't use it, just when. The when, why, how much, and applied to whom, should be at the root of the issue. Don't act so ignorant, it's unbecoming. We should all aspire to the NAP including you and your precious authoritarian elitists. The world would be a better place.

*sigh*

It's not what the NAP says that is at issue. It's that it doesn't address the ramifications of what happens when those who don't abide by the NAP have more force, resources or money than you. It doesn't provide a solution when a greater majority does not consistently abide by the NAP.

[Hawker]

The NAP also doesn't provide for the situation where both sides sincerely believe they are in the right and where an independent agency that neither side is able to select or to ignore is needed. 

The sensible way to look at this is in terms of theory of evolution.  There are many successfully evolved states that use a legal system based on democracy with the 3 arms of government separated.

There is none that uses the NAP as the basis of law.

That tells us that the NAP is not something that works in the real world.  Nice idea but it doesn't work.