Free markets and social problems:

[FredericBastiat]

*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.

You're stating the obvious. There is no doubt that a more powerful group, should they wish to apply violence, would likely get the upper hand. This is how it has transpired since the dawn of time. The animal kingdom is the same way. The superior species becomes de facto dominant.

Some nations overcome others and typically it's because one side must surrender to the other or bear the consequences of more bloodshed. But none of that speaks to the reasons for the warring in the first place and the conditions that brought it about.

None of the above is an excuse to conscript their citizenry to avoid being invaded. A little mutual respect would be nice. I personally believe, although I may never get the chance to prove it, is that cooperation will always produce better outcomes than being compelled to do the same.

[1713572737]

1713572737

[1713572737]

1713572737

[Hunterbunter]

"Government of the people, by the people and for the people." - some dead guy said that was the idea of the American system and I think its a good approximation of the ideal democracy.  Its not just the USA; pretty well the whole English speaking world is democratic and all of central and western Europe.  Contrary to your "2 wolves and a sheep" analogy, democracies are noted for human rights and for fairness. 

When dealing with their own people. 

Dictatorships treat other nations better than their own people?

I'm not sure how you got that from what I said and the text I bolded.  Democracies have historically treated their people fairly well when compared to dictatorships and feudal monarchies.  However, there are many examples of democratic countries visiting great harm upon the peoples of other nations.  The United States and Vietnam, for one example.

Yes, democratic countries have visited great harm on other countries. The only alternatives to democracy, dictatorships/monarchies, have done far worse to other countries than to their own people (eg ww2). You're saying democracies are more gentle to their own people than outsiders so they're still evil, but I'm refuting that since all the alternatives are too in the same context, so this argument is a straw man against the original assertion, that democracies are not noted for human rights and for fairness.

[Hawker]

...snip...

Yes, democratic countries have visited great harm on other countries. The only alternatives to democracy, dictatorships/monarchies, have done far worse to other countries than to their own people (eg ww2). You're saying democracies are more gentle to their own people than outsiders so they're still evil, but I'm refuting that since all the alternatives are too in the same context, so this argument is a straw man against the original assertion, that democracies are not noted for human rights and for fairness.

Democracies do have a better human rights record than the any alternatives and are less prone to human rights abuses.  We are a violent species so all forms of society will have issues but democracies are the best places to live.

[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"?

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.

So if it could be proved that such a system could exist without a state would you reevaluate your ideology?

[Hawker]

...snip...

So if it could be proved that such a system could exist without a state would you reevaluate your ideology?

Yes.  My ideology is that the state should be as small as possible.  Things like health, education and defence that are cheaper and better if done by the state are fine.  But if you have a way to do it cheaper and better without the state, I support it.  For example, phones work better in the private sector in my opinion.

[Automagic]

...snip...

So if it could be proved that such a system could exist without a state would you reevaluate your ideology?

Yes.  My ideology is that the state should be as small as possible.  Things like health, education and defence that are cheaper and better if done by the state are fine.  But if you have a way to do it cheaper and better without the state, I support it.  For example, phones work better in the private sector in my opinion.

That's reasonable.  I'm not convinced that any of those are done more efficiently by the government and that courts cannot exist without the state, but at the moment I don't have a compelling argument to support my position.  It's something I'd like to research more as I have time.  Reading your posts in this thread have given me some new angles to approach the questions from.

[Automagic]

"Government of the people, by the people and for the people." - some dead guy said that was the idea of the American system and I think its a good approximation of the ideal democracy.  Its not just the USA; pretty well the whole English speaking world is democratic and all of central and western Europe.  Contrary to your "2 wolves and a sheep" analogy, democracies are noted for human rights and for fairness. 

When dealing with their own people. 

Dictatorships treat other nations better than their own people?

I'm not sure how you got that from what I said and the text I bolded.  Democracies have historically treated their people fairly well when compared to dictatorships and feudal monarchies.  However, there are many examples of democratic countries visiting great harm upon the peoples of other nations.  The United States and Vietnam, for one example.

Yes, democratic countries have visited great harm on other countries. The only alternatives to democracy, dictatorships/monarchies, have done far worse to other countries than to their own people (eg ww2). You're saying democracies are more gentle to their own people than outsiders so they're still evil, but I'm refuting that since all the alternatives are too in the same context, so this argument is a straw man against the original assertion, that democracies are not noted for human rights and for fairness.

Apologies to the mods for double-posting if that sort of thing is frowned upon, but I wanted to answer this question in a separate post for clarity.

You seem to feel like I have straw-manned your position.  I'm not sure why.  I was replying to Hawker's post, which was a reply to a post by Bind.  All I was saying is that, yes, it's true that democracies tend to treat their people better than dictatorships and feudal monarchies, but it's important to keep in mind that they sometimes commit horrible atrocities upon the citizens of other nations.  Democracies aren't completely benevolent and peaceful like many people seem to think.  I just feel it's important to remember this.  That's the only point I was trying to make.

[Hunterbunter]

You seem to feel like I have straw-manned your position.  I'm not sure why.  I was replying to Hawker's post, which was a reply to a post by Bind.  All I was saying is that, yes, it's true that democracies tend to treat their people better than dictatorships and feudal monarchies, but it's important to keep in mind that they sometimes commit horrible atrocities upon the citizens of other nations.  Democracies aren't completely benevolent and peaceful like many people seem to think.  I just feel it's important to remember this.  That's the only point I was trying to make.

Alright, it wasn't my position I was necessarily defending.

The real crux here is that its the people in power that hurt other nations, not the power structures themselves. If Bush was in charge of Iraq and thought he could take Kuwait, he would have tried too.

Democracy lets the ordinary citizen have some input into the leaders, whereas monarchs and dictators usually take it by force / divine right. What one does with that power after it has suitably corrupted them, is not the structure's fault, necessarily, as laws have some part to play also.

At the very least, democracies have the means to remove especially evil leaders faster than dictatorships/monarchies. They're not benevolent, yes, but that doesn't make them less noted for their fairness compared to everything else.

[Hawker]

...snip...

At the very least, democracies have the means to remove especially evil leaders faster than dictatorships/monarchies. They're not benevolent, yes, but that doesn't make them less noted for their fairness compared to everything else.

There is a double negative there but if I take it out I get that "democracies...noted for their fairness compared to everything else."

Could it possibly be that we are in agreement?  On the Internet? surely some mistake :O

[Hunterbunter]

...snip...

At the very least, democracies have the means to remove especially evil leaders faster than dictatorships/monarchies. They're not benevolent, yes, but that doesn't make them less noted for their fairness compared to everything else.

There is a double negative there but if I take it out I get that "democracies...noted for their fairness compared to everything else."

Could it possibly be that we are in agreement?  On the Internet? surely some mistake :O

On this, yes agreement...I was actually defending your point to begin with. I probably could have been clearer. Automagic was making the assertion that democracies cannot be noted for fairness 'in general' because they're evil to foreigners, which I thought was unfair, since dictatorships are arguably even more evil to foreigners anyway, and by comparison they're still better.

If I argue with you, hopefully you won't think it's a personal attack. I'm more interested in the logic of the argument, as this will hopefully attest.

[senbonzakura]

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.

So if it could be proved that such a system could exist without a state would you reevaluate your ideology?

something like this ?

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=6775.msg103698#msg103698

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5256.msg78490#msg78490

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=3628.msg52787#msg52787

[Hawker]

senbonzakura - is a Somali tribe with its culture suffused in Islamic law really an ideal model.  Settlements where rape victims are forced to marry their abusers and female circumcision is enforced are not my idea of an improvement on what we have now.

[senbonzakura]

senbonzakura - is a Somali tribe with its culture suffused in Islamic law really an ideal model.  Settlements where rape victims are forced to marry their abusers and female circumcision is enforced are not my idea of an improvement on what we have now.

1. rape victims marrying their attacker/abuser is in the bible, not in the Quran. no such law exists in the Quran/shariah. if you do find cases where the victim is forced to or coerced to marry the abuser(in islamic countries), then that is against shariah/islamic law & condemned.

2. some places like egypt , have female circumcision, again its to do with culture. many non-islamic societies enforce female circumcision, its to do with culture.

3. I am not here to defend 'xeer' or some practices in some islamic societies/cultures , I just gave these links as some may find it interesting (regarding a system that exists without a state)

[Hawker]

senbonzakura - is a Somali tribe with its culture suffused in Islamic law really an ideal model.  Settlements where rape victims are forced to marry their abusers and female circumcision is enforced are not my idea of an improvement on what we have now.

1. rape victims marrying their attacker/abuser is in the bible, not in the Quran. no such law exists in the Quran/shariah. if you do find cases where the victim is forced to or coerced to marry the abuser(in islamic countries), then that is against shariah/islamic law & condemned.

2. some places like egypt , have female circumcision, again its to do with culture. many non-islamic societies enforce female circumcision, its to do with culture.

3. I am not here to defend 'xeer' or some practices in some islamic societies/cultures , I just gave these links as some may find it interesting (regarding a system that exists without a state)

We are both agreed that these are systems that exist without a state and we are both agreed that these are dreadful systems.  Its nice that we agree

[senbonzakura]

I didnt agree to anything 

I just posted links for info that is related to what was being discussed here.

So dont put words into my mouth

[Hawker]

I didnt agree to anything 

I just posted links for info that is related to what was being discussed here.

So dont put words into my mouth

Do you disagree that they are stateless systems and do you disagree that they are dreadful?