A Way To Be Free - Robert LeFevre

[hazek]

I think the difference between us is that I have a far lower opinion of my fellowman than you.

I've often noticed that apologists for the state have low opinions of their fellowmen. Contempt, even.

The old saying of "it takes one to know one" springs to mind.

Those who cherish freedom and voluntaryism, on the other hand, tend to respect their fellowmen and can see the great potential of human nature if unchained.

There is a reason why countries with institutions that have checks and balances do better than ones that offer absolute power

So you wont say I didn't show any evidence.. ^ is a perfect example of how you don't know how to think logically correctly: correlation does not equal causation http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Correlation_does_not_equal_causation

[Hawker]

I think the difference between us is that I have a far lower opinion of my fellowman than you.

I've often noticed that apologists for the state have low opinions of their fellowmen. Contempt, even.

The old saying of "it takes one to know one" springs to mind.

Those who cherish freedom and voluntaryism, on the other hand, tend to respect their fellowmen and can see the great potential of human nature if unchained.

There is a reason why countries with institutions that have checks and balances do better than ones that offer absolute power

A perfect example of how you don't know how to think logically correctly, correlation does not equal causation.

Actually the failure is yours there.  Institutions with checks and balances are better protected from the weaknesses of individuals.

[hazek]

I think the difference between us is that I have a far lower opinion of my fellowman than you.

I've often noticed that apologists for the state have low opinions of their fellowmen. Contempt, even.

The old saying of "it takes one to know one" springs to mind.

Those who cherish freedom and voluntaryism, on the other hand, tend to respect their fellowmen and can see the great potential of human nature if unchained.

There is a reason why countries with institutions that have checks and balances do better than ones that offer absolute power

So you wont say I didn't show any evidence.. ^ is a perfect example of how you don't know how to think logically correctly: correlation does not equal causation http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Correlation_does_not_equal_causation

Actually the failure is yours there.  Institutions with checks and balances are better protected from the weaknesses of individuals.  That is not a statement of causation.

No? What is it then if not a statement of causation?  

Let me break your statement down so you'll better see it: "If people are organized in an institution with checks and balances then they are better protected from their on individual weaknesses."

[Hawker]

I think the difference between us is that I have a far lower opinion of my fellowman than you.

I've often noticed that apologists for the state have low opinions of their fellowmen. Contempt, even.

The old saying of "it takes one to know one" springs to mind.

Those who cherish freedom and voluntaryism, on the other hand, tend to respect their fellowmen and can see the great potential of human nature if unchained.

There is a reason why countries with institutions that have checks and balances do better than ones that offer absolute power

A perfect example of how you don't know how to think logically correctly, correlation does not equal causation.

Actually the failure is yours there.  Institutions with checks and balances are better protected from the weaknesses of individuals.  That is not a statement of causation.

No? What is it then if not a statement of causation?  

Its a statement that institutions that have checks and balances are better suited to the environment of human society and so do better.

[ribuck]

There is a reason why countries with institutions that have checks and balances do better than ones that offer absolute power

Of course! But even in those countries, there is a common source of funding for the legislature, administration and judiciary: taxation.

Removing forceful taxation from the equation would add a further check (because those bodies would not be able to grow larger than the size the population wishes to fund), and would improve the balance (by changing it from a three-way to a four-way split of power: legislature, administration, judiciary, and citizens).

[hazek]

I think the difference between us is that I have a far lower opinion of my fellowman than you.

I've often noticed that apologists for the state have low opinions of their fellowmen. Contempt, even.

The old saying of "it takes one to know one" springs to mind.

Those who cherish freedom and voluntaryism, on the other hand, tend to respect their fellowmen and can see the great potential of human nature if unchained.

There is a reason why countries with institutions that have checks and balances do better than ones that offer absolute power

A perfect example of how you don't know how to think logically correctly, correlation does not equal causation.

Actually the failure is yours there.  Institutions with checks and balances are better protected from the weaknesses of individuals.  That is not a statement of causation.

No? What is it then if not a statement of causation?  

Let me break your statement down so you'll better see it: "If people are organized in an institution with checks and balances then they are better protected from their on individual weaknesses."

Its a statement that institutions that have checks and balances are better suited to the environment of human society and so do better.

And what is this statement if not one of causation?  

[Hawker]

There is a reason why countries with institutions that have checks and balances do better than ones that offer absolute power

Of course! But even in those countries, there is a common source of funding for the legislature, administration and judiciary: taxation.

Removing forceful taxation from the equation would add a further check (because those bodies would not be able to grow larger than the size the population wishes to fund), and would improve the balance (by changing it from a three-way to a four-way split of power: legislature, administration, judiciary, and citizens).

Remove taxation and you have to find another way to pay for your legislature, your administration and judiciary.  What would that be?  

[hazek]

What would that be?  

Like any other service provided by a market regulated strictly by market consumers (i.e. a free market): A voluntary contract.

[N12]

I think the difference between us is that I have a far lower opinion of my fellowman than you.

I've often noticed that apologists for the state have low opinions of their fellowmen. Contempt, even.

The old saying of "it takes one to know one" springs to mind.

Those who cherish freedom and voluntaryism, on the other hand, tend to respect their fellowmen and can see the great potential of human nature if unchained.

I’m with Hawker. Since humans are animals, violence, theft and even rape is inherent.

I cannot imagine privatized law, justice and execution not ending in terrible disasters caused by faulty incentives (it’s all about who pays best).

The only thing that would change my mind is an anarchist society that actually ends up being prosperous and peaceful. And of course doesn’t collapse within years because a state forms. This has never happened in history, so the burden is on the anarchists to show it can work and most importantly, be sustained.

[Hawker]

What would that be?  

Like any other service provided by a market regulated strictly by market consumers (i.e. a free market): A voluntary contract.

You can't have a market regulated by consumers as you need legal enforcement of contracts.  That means a state with a court system and a system of contract law.

Criminal law has to be the same for everyone and there can't be a way to opt out of it or so renegotiate it.

Property law for things like inheritance and divorce is much the same.  You can't have one person saying he is a Muslim and that his wife gets nothing in a divorce while his wife says he wants 50% of the family assets.

None of this can be done efficiently by voluntary contract.

[hazek]

What would that be?  

Like any other service provided by a market regulated strictly by market consumers (i.e. a free market): A voluntary contract.

You can't have a market regulated by consumers as you need legal enforcement of contracts.  That means a state with a court system and a system of contract law.

Criminal law has to be the same for everyone and there can't be a way to opt out of it or so renegotiate it.

Property law for things like inheritance and divorce is much the same.  You can't have one person saying he is a Muslim and that his wife gets nothing in a divorce while his wife says he wants 50% of the family assets.

None of this can be done efficiently by voluntary contract.

You truly are hopeless, I'm done with you.

[Hawker]

What would that be?  

Like any other service provided by a market regulated strictly by market consumers (i.e. a free market): A voluntary contract.

You can't have a market regulated by consumers as you need legal enforcement of contracts.  That means a state with a court system and a system of contract law.

Criminal law has to be the same for everyone and there can't be a way to opt out of it or so renegotiate it.

Property law for things like inheritance and divorce is much the same.  You can't have one person saying he is a Muslim and that his wife gets nothing in a divorce while his wife says he wants 50% of the family assets.

None of this can be done efficiently by voluntary contract.

You truly are hopeless, I'm done with you.

Whenever the weakness of your own position is pointed out, you announce "slave I am done with you"

lol

[ribuck]

Remove taxation and you have to find another way to pay for your legislature, your administration and judiciary.  What would that be?  

Those who value the services can pay for them. If the services deliver value, they will be funded. If they don't, they won't be.

You keep telling us about all these people who want a state so that it can force them to do what is "good" for them. Surely they will voluntarily pay for it?

[Hawker]

Remove taxation and you have to find another way to pay for your legislature, your administration and judiciary.  What would that be?  

Those who value the services can pay for them. If the services deliver value, they will be funded. If they don't, they won't be.

You keep telling us about all these people who want a state so that it can force them to do what is "good" for them. Surely they will voluntarily pay for it?

Lets go back to the Jaycee Dugard case: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kidnapping_of_Jaycee_Lee_Dugard

Who should pay for the police investigation?  Her family?  Jaycee herself?  Is that your idea of voluntary payment?

[westkybitcoins]

...snipping as the posts have gotten so damn long...

If I were to have a true choice, it wouldn't be from the alternatives you offer... I'd rather choose a society with no government, but with people choosing voluntary protection services (or self-protection,) and with enough wealth to defend themselves from foreign states too. If Afgahnistan can do it, then a government-less U.S. could easily repel foreign states, and likely several other advanced nations could too.

Now, I honestly doubt that'll ever materialize in my lifetime, or anytime in the near future, but it's the moral ideal, and the most practically effective in terms of providing security and allowing for prosperity, so of course I try to choose options that lead closer to that ideal.

Given an already advanced and wealthy nation, and the option of continuing its government or disbanding it (or at least disbanding the higher levels,) I'll always opt for the latter. And while I believe it'll lead to greater personal benefit for me, that's not why I'd choose it... I'd choose it because I believe that that is the moral option, because I believe that initiating force against someone who has not done so is wrong, and is one of the greater wrongs that mankind is capable of.

I grew up in an environment where people were being snatched off the street and killed for having the wrong religion so I believe allowing the bad guys to initiate force is bad. <snip> Its immoral to allow that.

I'm not ignoring the snipped portion, I'll address it below.

I think the blanket statement that it's "immoral to allow" something is a slippery slope. Yes, I believe that generally speaking, someone with the power to do good for someone who needs it, but who doesn't do it, is wrong. But IMO such things should be examined and sometimes taken on a case-by-case basis.

That said, I understand where you're coming from, and tend to agree with the sentiment.

The question becomes, is a formal nation-state the most appropriate (and most effective) way to handle that? After all, all nation-states themselves initiate force on innocents to varying degrees. If you're willing to just settle for the state because it initiates less visible, less damaging force, then why bother trying to argue that it has any level of legitimacy? Why not just state, "they're a less violent gang, so I support them, even if they do wrong," and be done with it? That's what most people arguing against the state resent most... the societal lie that the government has some sort of legitimate authority for what it does.

<inserted> We know that if you don't have police and an army in control of your street, bad stuff will happen. </insert>

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shankill_Butchers

By the way, these guys were citizen justice at its finest.  Some of their victims were Protestants but their tongues were destroyed with pliers before they got a chance to say so and then they were tortured to death.  That's what happens when you don't have police, courts and the rule of law.

This happens in situations with police, courts, and the rule of law as well. Even the most tyrannical regimes usually codify the evil they do as legal, for some strange, perverse reason (witness the U.S.'s NDAA and other recent laws.) Even though in some situations a government comes in and actually does good, the overall idea that government = safety, no government = destructive chaos is a false one. Such wrong usually occurs or fails to occur regardless of government presence.

There are a number of modern, wealthy society where most of the people aren't prone to this sort of thing in the first place, which can be seen somewhat by how often such things actually happen... police may act as a deterrent but they rarely actively prevent crimes, and if the populace is set on doing something, they will do it unless forcibly prevented. In such a society, I see no reason to believe that the replacement of a government with other, voluntary means of protection is going to be anything but positive.

[hazek]

Remove taxation and you have to find another way to pay for your legislature, your administration and judiciary.  What would that be?  

Those who value the services can pay for them. If the services deliver value, they will be funded. If they don't, they won't be.

You keep telling us about all these people who want a state so that it can force them to do what is "good" for them. Surely they will voluntarily pay for it?

Lets go back to the Jaycee Dugard case: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kidnapping_of_Jaycee_Lee_Dugard

Who should pay for the police investigation?  Her family?  Jaycee herself?  Is that your idea of voluntary payment?

Yet another example of how something can't be possible because you aren't smart enough to find a solution.. That's all your replies are, all the time. You point out a problem and then lack the imagination and mental capacity to find a non violent solution, and then you make a non sequitur saying it must be only solvable through violence.

News flash, there are no guarantees in life, that's why man invented insurance.

[Hawker]

Remove taxation and you have to find another way to pay for your legislature, your administration and judiciary.  What would that be?  

Those who value the services can pay for them. If the services deliver value, they will be funded. If they don't, they won't be.

You keep telling us about all these people who want a state so that it can force them to do what is "good" for them. Surely they will voluntarily pay for it?

Lets go back to the Jaycee Dugard case: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kidnapping_of_Jaycee_Lee_Dugard

Who should pay for the police investigation?  Her family?  Jaycee herself?  Is that your idea of voluntary payment?

Yet another example of how something can't be possible because you aren't smart enough to find a solution.. That's all your replies are, all the time. You point out a problem and then lack the imagination and mental capacity to find a non violent solution, and then you make a non sequitur saying it must be only solvable through violence.

News flash, there are no guarantees in life, that's why man invented insurance.

Actually I think the pay for the police from taxes is a fine solution.

Unless you are suggesting that if Jaycee wasn't insured, the kidnapping should not be investigated, insurance won't work. 

[Hawker]

...snip...

There are a number of modern, wealthy society where most of the people aren't prone to this sort of thing in the first place, which can be seen somewhat by how often such things actually happen... police may act as a deterrent but they rarely actively prevent crimes, and if the populace is set on doing something, they will do it unless forcibly prevented. In such a society, I see no reason to believe that the replacement of a government with other, voluntary means of protection is going to be anything but positive.

I totally reject that idea.  Take away the security bubble of the state and you are only a few hours away from looting, riots and murders.  In Ireland, it was the Brits deciding not to police certain areas caused hell to break loose.  Only last year, London police took a decision to "prioritise preserving life over preserving property" and the city was racked by violence and riots within 30 minutes.  

We are a violent species - any system of government must begin from the reality that individuals will be as violent as you allow them to be and that its laws that restrain us.

[FirstAscent]

I think the difference between us is that I have a far lower opinion of my fellowman than you.

I've often noticed that apologists for the state have low opinions of their fellowmen. Contempt, even.

The old saying of "it takes one to know one" springs to mind.

Those who cherish freedom and voluntaryism, on the other hand, tend to respect their fellowmen and can see the great potential of human nature if unchained.

I’m with Hawker. Since humans are animals, violence, theft and even rape is inherent.

I cannot imagine privatized law, justice and execution not ending in terrible disasters caused by faulty incentives (it’s all about who pays best).

The only thing that would change my mind is an anarchist society that actually ends up being prosperous and peaceful. And of course doesn’t collapse within years because a state forms. This has never happened in history, so the burden is on the anarchists to show it can work and most importantly, be sustained.

It's never happened in history because it's vulnerable to being replaced by governance. Only the deluded believe it would work.

[hashman]

...snip...

There are a number of modern, wealthy society where most of the people aren't prone to this sort of thing in the first place, which can be seen somewhat by how often such things actually happen... police may act as a deterrent but they rarely actively prevent crimes, and if the populace is set on doing something, they will do it unless forcibly prevented. In such a society, I see no reason to believe that the replacement of a government with other, voluntary means of protection is going to be anything but positive.

I totally reject that idea.  Take away the security bubble of the state and you are only a few hours away from looting, riots and murders.  In Ireland, it was the Brits deciding not to police certain areas caused hell to break loose.  Only last year, London police took a decision to "prioritise preserving life over preserving property" and the city was racked by violence and riots within 30 minutes.  

We are a violent species - any system of government must begin from the reality that individuals will be as violent as you allow them to be and that its laws that restrain us.

So we are a violent species.. therefore we should give unaccountable people weapons and authority to do violence? 
The police become necessary in a society in that juncture in the society where there is a division because those who have and those who have not - Malcolm X