A Way To Be Free - Robert LeFevre

[Hawker]

its not a problem with democracy that the American public are so enthusiastic about locking people up; its a problem with your society.  Change people's minds and the prison population will fall.

Riiiiiight, it's not the state, no no, people are simply "enthusiastic" about trying to resists and dying pointlessly when a gang of heavily armed men decides to throw someone in a cage.  

If you vote for tough drug laws and long jail sentences, you will get exactly that.  And Americans have always voted for such laws.  In the UK, most murderers are released after about 8 years for good behaviour.  In the US, the same guys would waste their lives away in jails.  That because if an American politician stands up and says "Release murderers after 8 years" he will not be re-elected.

It seems to me that you are creating this mysterious entity called "government" and trying to blame it for your own people's choices.  In a democracy, there is no dividing line between the government and the people who vote for the government.  Deal with your neighbours attitudes and then you will find that the rate of imprisonment falls.  

[hazek]

its not a problem with democracy that the American public are so enthusiastic about locking people up; its a problem with your society.  Change people's minds and the prison population will fall.

Riiiiiight, it's not the state, no no, people are simply "enthusiastic" about trying to resists and dying pointlessly when a gang of heavily armed men decides to throw someone in a cage.  

If you vote for tough drug laws and long jail sentences, you will get exactly that.  And Americans have always voted for such laws.  In the UK, most murderers are released after about 8 years for good behaviour.  In the US, the same guys waste their lives away in jails.  That because if an American politician stands up and says "Release murderers after 8 years" he will not be re-elected.

It seems to me that you are creating this mysterious entity called "government" and trying to blame it for your own people's choices.  In a democracy, there is no dividing line between the government and the people who vote for the government.  Deal with your neighbours attitudes and then you will find that the rate of imprisonment falls.  

Look it's ok, I'm not going to argue with you, there's no point. You are a delusional true believer. You want to be a good slave, I don't. You can't possibly change my mind to not want my freedom and I know you are incapable of rational thought because for you to see the gun in the room that is the state will simply cause you way too much cognitive dissonance and you simply reject the reality and cling on to your fantasy. It's human nature.

[asdf]

I believe I have stated the position of my adversaries fairly.  There is invariably the same oversight.  If we have a government, it will be human beings who will be hired to restrain the evil in others.  Who are these persons who will be hired, either by popularity contests or by direct application?  They will be just as human and as much disposed toward evil as those to be restrained.

That is simply untrue. It fails at 3 levels:
- Whether its Genghiz Khan or Captain John Hawkins, human history shows that if a weak society exists, a large organised society will come along and enslave it.  Having your own democratic state is preferable to that.  Ask any Afghan or Iraqi...heck ask any Palestinian or Jew what happens when you are don't have an army that can protect you.

Ask who what?  What are you referring to as a large organized society and why?   

Question is very simple; what happens when you have the misfortune to live in a society without a state to protect you from bad guys?  Whether the answer you get is genocide, expropriation, slavery or what, its unpleasant compared to being in a society where you are free behind a decent military and judicial system.

You assume that a free society cannot defend itself from outside aggression. If people desire defense, a market will emerge to supply this need.

[Hawker]

...snip...

Look it's ok, I'm not going to argue with you, there's no point. You are a delusional true believer. You want to be a good slave, I don't. You can't possibly change my mind to not want my freedom and I know you are incapable of rational thought because for you to see the gun in the room that is the state will simply cause you way too much cognitive dissonance and you simply reject the reality and cling on to your fantasy. It's human nature.

LeFevre's article fails for the reasons I set out in https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=83760.msg923827#msg923827

Your response is to say that anyone who points out where he fails is delusional, a slave, whatever.  Thats called an ad hominem argument.  Its a fallacy - look it up.

[asdf]

its not a problem with democracy that the American public are so enthusiastic about locking people up; its a problem with your society.  Change people's minds and the prison population will fall.

Riiiiiight, it's not the state, no no, people are simply "enthusiastic" about trying to resists and dying pointlessly when a gang of heavily armed men decides to throw someone in a cage.  

If you vote for tough drug laws and long jail sentences, you will get exactly that.  And Americans have always voted for such laws.  In the UK, most murderers are released after about 8 years for good behaviour.  In the US, the same guys would waste their lives away in jails.  That because if an American politician stands up and says "Release murderers after 8 years" he will not be re-elected.

It seems to me that you are creating this mysterious entity called "government" and trying to blame it for your own people's choices.  In a democracy, there is no dividing line between the government and the people who vote for the government.  Deal with your neighbours attitudes and then you will find that the rate of imprisonment falls.  

But this is the state! The problem is precisely that we have a system where we vote for one of two sociopaths, based on who they say they will apply the violent power of the state to. In this case non-violent drug users.

The problem isn't that we voted for "tough drug laws" (i fucking didn't btw), but that we are using violence to solve social problems (ie. the state).

[Hawker]

...snip...

You assume that a free society cannot defend itself from outside aggression. If people desire defense, a market will emerge to supply this need.

That market will is working at the moment in the Congo, Somalia and Afghanistan.  States like Rwanda, Eritrea and India are sponsoring militias and wreaking havoc on the people who live in those states.  Since individuals can never outspend a state, its a market in which those who don't have a state are always the losers.

[Hawker]

...snip...

But this is the state! The problem is precisely that we have a system where we vote for one of two sociopaths, based on who they say they will apply the violent power of the state to. In this case non-violent drug users.

The problem isn't that we voted for "tough drug laws" (i fucking didn't btw), but that we are using violence to solve social problems (ie. the state).

There are reasons why the rule of law is better than the rule of the mob.  The state restrains violence.  Take it away and you have lynch law.  If you lived in the midst of a large group of people and the only form of justice is mob law, you would regard a state with its rules about when you can kill someone as paradise.  For example, here in the UK people decided to remove paedophiles from their community.  They attacked a paediatrician.  

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/wales/901723.stm

That's what happens when you don't have courts.  

EDIT: just realised that people are still being killed by mobs making mistakes like this:
http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/courts-crime/2012/03/30/mum-and-teenager-locked-up-for-vigilante-killing-of-innocent-man-wrongly-branded-a-paedophile-86908-23806339/

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1234783/Innocent-man-accused-paedophile-hounded-death-vigilantes.html

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/848737.stm

All examples of what happens when you replace the rule of law with allowing anyone who thinks they are morally right to apply their own justice.

[asdf]

...snip...

You assume that a free society cannot defend itself from outside aggression. If people desire defense, a market will emerge to supply this need.

That market will is working at the moment in the Congo, Somalia and Afghanistan.  States like Rwanda, Eritrea and India are sponsoring militias and wreaking havoc on the people who live in those states.  Since individuals can never outspend a state, its a market in which those who don't have a state are always the losers.

Are you claiming that these societies are stateless?

Why does an individual need to outspend a state for private defense?

[asdf]

...snip...

But this is the state! The problem is precisely that we have a system where we vote for one of two sociopaths, based on who they say they will apply the violent power of the state to. In this case non-violent drug users.

The problem isn't that we voted for "tough drug laws" (i fucking didn't btw), but that we are using violence to solve social problems (ie. the state).

There are reasons why the rule of law is better than the rule of the mob.  The state restrains violence.  Take it away and you have lynch law.  If you lived in the midst of a large group of people and the only form of justice is mob law, you would regard a state with its rules about when you can kill someone as paradise.  For example, here in the UK people decided to remove paedophiles from their community.  They attacked a paediatrician.  

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/wales/901723.stm

That's what happens when you don't have courts.  

EDIT: just realised that people are still being killed by mobs making mistakes like this:
http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/courts-crime/2012/03/30/mum-and-teenager-locked-up-for-vigilante-killing-of-innocent-man-wrongly-branded-a-paedophile-86908-23806339/

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1234783/Innocent-man-accused-paedophile-hounded-death-vigilantes.html

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/848737.stm

Again, you are starting from the premise that a free society can't provide the services of the state. Why can't the market provide services that protect peoples property and person?

All examples of what happens when you replace the rule of law with allowing anyone who thinks they are morally right to apply their own justice.

All the examples you cite are occurring in societies with large state institutions.

A stateless society is not "anyone who thinks they are morally right to apply their own justice". Do you really think anyone who behaved like this would not suffer any consequences?

Learn about Anarcho-capitalism. It's a social system based on a pure free market and is the absolute application of the Non Aggression Principal (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-aggression_principle), which the vast majority of people already believe and apply in their personal lives. Incidentally, the state (a violently enforced political authority), by definition, contradicts this principal.

[Hawker]

...snip...
All the examples you cite are occurring in societies with large state institutions.

A stateless society is not "anyone who thinks they are morally right to apply their own justice". Do you really think anyone who behaved like this would not suffer any consequences?

Learn about Anarcho-capitalism. It's a social system based on a pure free market and is the absolute application of the Non Aggression Principal (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-aggression_principle), which the vast majority of people already believe and apply in their personal lives. Incidentally, the state (a violently enforced political authority), by definition, contradicts this principal.

The problem with Anarcho-capitalism is that it has no way to provide private property rights, justice or defence.

Without a system of legal title and a court system to protect it, you don't have property so your society will be very poor.  With a police and justice system, people will have to enforce their own version of justice; you are right that they will suffer consequences but the overall effect is that life is more arbitrary violence.  Without defence, foreign states will sponsor local proxies as happens in Somalia and the like.

In short, Anarcho-capitalism is that it cannot work as well as a democratic state.  Its like comparing walking barefoot to travelling by car; sure barefoot is nice but a car is almost always nicer.

[justusranvier]

The problem with Anarcho-capitalism is that it has no way to provide private property rights, justice or defence.

Without a system of legal title and a court system to protect it, you don't have property so your society will be very poor.  With a police and justice system, people will have to enforce their own version of justice; you are right that they will suffer consequences but the overall effect is that life is more arbitrary violence.

This is exactly what life is like with a state.

None of the western democracies allow for private property ownership of land. All land is rented from the state. Justice is only available for those that can afford it and certain classes of people are above the law entirely. In some countries your property can be seized at a whim by any uniformed thug who thinks it might have come from the proceeds of growing the wrong vegetables.

All of your criticisms of anarchy are merely describing what it's like to live under the rule of a state.

[Hawker]

The problem with Anarcho-capitalism is that it has no way to provide private property rights, justice or defence.

Without a system of legal title and a court system to protect it, you don't have property so your society will be very poor.  With a police and justice system, people will have to enforce their own version of justice; you are right that they will suffer consequences but the overall effect is that life is more arbitrary violence.

This is exactly what life is like with a state.

None of the western democracies allow for private property ownership of land. All land is rented from the state. Justice is only available for those that can afford it and certain classes of people are above the law entirely. In some countries your property can be seized at a whim by any uniformed thug who thinks it might have come from the proceeds of growing the wrong vegetables.

All of your criticisms of anarchy are merely describing what it's like to live under the rule of a state.

Um, the logic failure you make is that you say the state isn't perfect so we must do without its benefits.  99.9999% of property owners have secure title and are happy with that.  There will be a few cases of injustice but that doesn't mean the 99.9999% of us with houses and shares need to do without them does it?  Justice is available for all in the US and UK and most decent democracies as the courts facilitate people who represent themselves and there are no win/no fee lawyers is you have a good case.  

I think you are hinting that if there were anarchy, you could grow narcotics freely.  But if there were no state and you were growing drugs you would still live in a community of people who used to vote for anti-narcotic drug laws so you could expect mobs with AK-47s burning you out.  Its not the law is the problem with drugs - its people's beliefs.

[justusranvier]

Um, the logic failure you make is that you say the state isn't perfect so we must do without its benefits.

I'm just applying the same standard you use to criticize a stateless society. You condemn freedom because it isn't perfect yet tolerate all the imperfections of the state as being irrelevant.

[Hawker]

Um, the logic failure you make is that you say the state isn't perfect so we must do without its benefits.

I'm just applying the same standard you use to criticize a stateless society. You condemn freedom because it isn't perfect yet tolerate all the imperfections of the state as being irrelevant.

I compare the 2 and say that a state has less imperfections.  There is no good system - we will always be talking about the least bad.  But anarchy is way worse in that there is no private property, no rule of law and no defence system.

[justusranvier]

I’d like you to imagine a man standing in the middle of a large meadow. You spend some time watching this man, and it doesn’t take you very long to notice that he paces back and forth in a small square, about 10 feet on either side. That’s all. Just 10 feet.

After a few hours of watching him do this, you walk up to him. When you reach forward to shake his hand, however, your fingers are burned by a strong electrical shock from an invisible barrier.

Startled – and hurt – you cry out. The man looks up.

“What’s the matter?” he asks.

“I just ran into this invisible wall which gave me a hell of a shock!” you cry.

He frowns. “I didn’t see anything.”

You blink. “Really? You’ve never heard or seen or felt this invisible barrier?”

He shakes his head slowly. “What invisible barrier?”

“The one that surrounds you – the one that keeps you penned in this little 10 foot square!”

“What little 10 foot square?” he demands. “There’s no little 10 foot square! I can go wherever the hell I want!”

“No you can’t!”

“Who the hell are you to tell me where I can and cannot go? I decide that!”

“I’m not telling you where you can and cannot go – I’m just telling you what you are actually doing!”

“What on earth are you talking about?”

“Well, I’ve been watching you for the past few hours, and you’re standing in the middle of this great big meadow, and yet all you do is pace back and forth 10 feet.”

“I can go anywhere I damn well please!” the man repeats angrily.

“You say that, but all you do is pace around and around in a little 10 foot square! If you can go anywhere you please, why don’t you just try taking one extra step?”

“I have no idea what you’re talking about,” he growls. “Now get the hell off my damn property!”

“Wait – I can show you!” You reach down and pick up some grass. You throw it towards the man. A few feet away from his face, the blades of grass burst into flame and evaporate. You do this several times, proving definitively that there is in fact an invisible force field that surrounds him, roughly 10 feet by 10 feet.

“Do you see?” you ask eagerly. “Do you see that you are in an invisible cage?”

“Get the hell off my property, you madman!” he cries, shaking with rage.

“But you must know that you are in an invisible cage,” you cry out. “You must know that, because you never try to go outside these walls. You must have at one time tried to break free of this cage, and were burned by the electric shock, which is why you never take more than a few steps before turning around! Don’t you see?”

He pulls out a gun, screams that he has a principle of shooting trespassers, and, quite sensibly, you run away.

This is the great paradox of attempting to teach people what they already know. Everybody claims complete freedom, but paces back and forth, trapped in a little square. Everyone is surrounded by the invisible cages of culture and mythology, and denies it completely. The evidence of these cages is very clear, because people always turn back just before they hit them. But then they deny that these cages exist.

Everybody acts as if they are perfectly free, and perfectly enslaved at the same time. Nobody admits to being in a prison, but everyone shuffles around in an invisible 10 x 10 cell.

In the same way, everyone tells you that they are free, but in fact everyone is trapped in little tiny cells of allowable conversation. Everybody tells you they love you, but strenuously avoids talking about what love is, or what about you they love.

Everyone tells you to be good, but they have no idea what goodness is – and will savage you for even having the temerity to ask the question.

Everybody talks about the truth, but the real truth is that nobody can talk about the truth – what it is, how it is defined, how it is verified, and its value.

[Hawker]

Um, the logic failure you make is that you say the state isn't perfect so we must do without its benefits.

I'm just applying the same standard you use to criticize a stateless society. You condemn freedom because it isn't perfect yet tolerate all the imperfections of the state as being irrelevant.

I compare the 2 and say that a state has less imperfections.  There is no good system - we will always be talking about the least bad.  But anarchy is way worse in that there is no private property, no rule of law and no defence system.

Your parable suggest you skipped reading that post.

[justusranvier]

Um, the logic failure you make is that you say the state isn't perfect so we must do without its benefits.

I'm just applying the same standard you use to criticize a stateless society. You condemn freedom because it isn't perfect yet tolerate all the imperfections of the state as being irrelevant.

I compare the 2 and say that a state has less imperfections.  There is no good system - we will always be talking about the least bad.  But anarchy is way worse in that there is no private property, no rule of law and no defence system.

Your parable suggest you skipped reading that post.

I stopped reading at that point because you put forward a speculative hypothesis as fact without providing a methodology for testing the hypothesis.

Based on your history of moving goal posts and other forms of sophism I don't expect that you'll provide such a methodology or will agree to change your position should your hypothesis be falsified so I'm not interested in continuing the debate. I posted the parable for the benefit of other people reading the thread.

[Hawker]

Um, the logic failure you make is that you say the state isn't perfect so we must do without its benefits.

I'm just applying the same standard you use to criticize a stateless society. You condemn freedom because it isn't perfect yet tolerate all the imperfections of the state as being irrelevant.

I compare the 2 and say that a state has less imperfections.  There is no good system - we will always be talking about the least bad.  But anarchy is way worse in that there is no private property, no rule of law and no defence system.

Your parable suggest you skipped reading that post.

I stopped reading at that point because you put forward a speculative hypothesis as fact without providing a methodology for testing the hypothesis.

Based on your history of moving goal posts and other forms of sophism I don't expect that you'll provide such a methodology or will agree to change your position should your hypothesis be falsified so I'm not interested in continuing the debate. I posted the parable for the benefit of other people reading the thread.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=83760.msg923827#msg923827

No goal posted moved.  All that happened is that you can't support your argument that anarchy is better than democracy.

[asdf]

The problem with Anarcho-capitalism is that it has no way to provide private property rights, justice or defence.

For the third time, you make the false assertion that the marketplace cannot provide the services provided by the government. Yet all these services have at some point in history been successfully provided by private enterprise. You can buy insurance to protect your person and property, and use arbitration firms for resolving disputes.

There is plenty of literature and media on this subject (only a google search away). You seem to be blissfully unaware of it and have no interest in leaning.

Just because you can't think of a solution to a market need does not justify using violence and theft to solve the problem. Your whole argument is one big is-ought fallacy: the government is what there is, therefore it's what there ought to be.

[Hawker]

The problem with Anarcho-capitalism is that it has no way to provide private property rights, justice or defence.

For the third time, you make the false assertion that the marketplace cannot provide the services provided by the government. Yet all these services have at some point in history been successfully provided by private enterprise. You can buy insurance to protect your person and property, and use arbitration firms for resolving disputes.

There is plenty of literature and media on this subject (only a google search away). You seem to be blissfully unaware of it and have no interest in leaning.

Just because you can't think of a solution to a market need does not justify using violence and theft to solve the problem. Your whole argument is one big is-ought fallacy: the government is what there is, therefore it's what there ought to be.

I've read it.  We've discussed it in these forums.  It always comes out that a system with a state is more efficient for property rights.  You have to remember that human organisations evolve in a competitive environment.  The reason we have states is that societies that didn't have states got crushed by conquest and slavery or simply ceased to exist as people attached themselves to the prosperous states.