Jump to content


Anarcho-Capitalism


Recommended Posts

 

which means that you're an anarchist. the founding document that gave any human on this planet the most freedom it can possibly have from a centralized government, and you say that it doesn't give enough.

 

you are a religious zealot, and your god is the invisible hand of the free market.

 

No way, what gives you that idea!!!!????!!!!!!! And I don't even need to refute your argument because you've said it best already. "The founding document that gave any human on this planet the most freedom it can possibly have from a centralized government." So, if this document gives the max freedom possible from a centralized government, what about the freedoms under no government? I mean the freedoms we have today are soooo great, but what about the freedom to not be murdered, stolen from, coerced, lied to, and enslaved? Oh those are just too much to ask for, huh???

 

A religious zealot of the invisible hand free market god? That's funny, never heard that one before. As everyone can plainly see, you are resorting to name-calling because you have no legitimate, logical, or rational argument against my claims. That's fine, you're free to do as you see fit, but don't expect your arguments to be read with any amount credibility, because they have none.

 

How does your AC prevent people from being murdered, stolen from, coerced, lied to, or enslaved? How does it guarantee those freedoms?

Link to comment

it can't.

 

there will always be murders (psycho- or sociopaths), theft (coveting), coercion, lying, and enslavement (ignorance and physical and emotional weakness).

 

anarchy can't protect people from this. it only allows those people who use those tools, to use those tools without moral consequence.

Link to comment

 

The Declaration of Independence does not outline our governmental system; the Constitution does. Of course the Declaration is going to emphasize personal liberties (actually referencing taxation) because that was our primary beef with GB. However, the actual formal outline of our government is provided by the Constitution and not the Declaration. The Constitution does not claim the solitary purpose you highlighted in the Declaration. The preamble states:

 

"We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

 

That is hardly the "sole purpose" that you claim for the existence of the US Government. You can't pick and choose your citations and maintain credibility...particularly when the document cited is not directly relevant.

 

1. First of all, nobody was arguing about the outline of our governmental system, rather the purpose of government. Secondly, 2. the grievances outlined in the Declaration of Independence were about a lot more than taxation, if that's what you think maybe you need to read or re-read it. Were 3. the contents of the Declaration of Independence, and the King disregarding it, not the “primary beef” for starting the revolution; leading to the founding of our country and the creation of the Constitution? If anything using that document calls into credibility those you created the documents in which the founding government of this country was based upon. Did the founders not write and sign both documents? 4. Is not the purpose of every single one of the reasons for establishing the government (a perfect union), as outlined in the Constitution, to ensure the preservation of the rights of the individual? Let’s take a look.

 

5. Establish justice = ensuring that that one individual(s), country or ruler does not trample the rights of another individual(s).

 

6. Insure domestic tranquility = ensuring that that one individual(s), country or ruler does not trample the rights of another individual(s).

 

7. Provide for the common defense = ensuring that that one individual(s), country or ruler does not trample the rights of another individual(s).

 

8. Promote the general welfare = ensuring that that one individual(s), country or ruler does not trample the rights of another individual(s).

 

9. Secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity = Do I even need to mention what this means?

 

10. If the Constitution was created for any other reason but to ensure the preservation of individual liberty doesn’t that call into question the credibility of those who wrote and signed it?

 

11. This also brings about the bigger question of how can a document claim to preserve the rights of individual freedoms, when the only way it can be implemented is through the loss of freedom?

When you can answer that with any logical and non-contradictory reason please feel free.

 

1. Who said that the declaration enumerated the purpose for the US government? It merely listed our grievances against the current ruling government, England. As far as I can recall (and I'm going from memory here) it didn't make any mention of a purpose for a new government in America, it merely stated while we were unhappy with the status quo.

 

2. Absolutely there were more grievances listed in the declaration than "taxation without representation." However, that particular grievance (taxation without representation) was absolutely the bulk of the colonists complaints. All other grievances were mere accessories to this primary complaint. Think about the purpose for the declaration. If you do that you will realize that the writers' purposes were best served by listing every single grievance they could think of, whether or not it was a huge issue to the colonists. The longer the list of grievance (real or imagined) the more impressive the document as a whole appears to the King of England and the world at large.

 

3. No. Absolutely not. The colonists complaints did not start with the declaration. The Declaration of Independence was a result of public opinion; public opinion was not a result of the Declaration. The Revolutionary War did officially begin after the Declaration, but the grievances and the threats existed long before the Declaration compiled them. What you are saying is akin to claiming the US entered WWII because FDR declared war on Japan . . . without mentioning that FDR's statement was a result of Japan's attack on Pearl Harbor.

 

4. NO! 1,000 times, no! Absolutely not. The Constitution (combined with the Bill of Rights) lists specific rights of the individual that are to be protected. Nowhere does it guarantee absolute personal freedom. There is no US founding document ANYWHERE that guarantees absolute personal freedom. (I challenge you, find me one, and I will support everything you are saying here even the things that I have previously argued. Good luck sir. It does not exist.) The Constitution combined with the Bill of Rights lists the freedoms that are protected by those documents; freedoms outside of those enumerated exist only with blessings of the state.

 

5. Establish Justice - A simple statement of this is that the US government will try to protect individuals from private wrongdoers. As in punish/imprison those who break the laws of the US. This requires an inherent loss of freedom for those wrongdoers. Let's go with a simple analogy: A man takes another's personal freedom by murdering him. That murderer in turn loses his freedom (assuming the justice system functions correctly). Therefore, "justice" in most cases limits freedoms to protect the specifically enumerated freedoms provided for in the USC.

 

6. Ensure domestic tranquility - see above #5. (How do you propose to establish justice and ensure tranquility without limiting freedoms in some way? i.e. punishment/fines/incarceration)

 

7. Provide for the common defense - Again . . . the base purpose of this may be to protect the freedoms listed in the constitution and bill of rights . . . but how can you fund a military that will accomplish this goal without taxing the citizens? This necessary function (defense of the people) again requires the partial relinquishment of financial freedoms of the people. We all must pay through taxes for our common defense.

 

8. Promote the general welfare - See #7. Promoting the general welfare will general require funding of some sort. Government cannot function in a vacuum. Even the most basic functions of the state will require taxation. (police, vote collection and counting, etc.)

 

9. Agreed. The Constitution is set to preserve the rights listed therein. Those rights will almost always require the relinquishment of some liberties to preserve the ones listed.

 

10. Not at all. The writers realized that the preservation of the all important rights listed in the USC and Bill of Rights required limiting or even relinquishing some other freedoms.

 

11. See above. (4-8 in particular.) The preservation of the specific rights listed in the USC and the Bill of Rights (freedom of speech, religion, etc. etc. etc.) The founders thought these rights the most important to the people, and they were willing to limit other freedoms to ensure that the people enjoyed these rights. There is no contradiction. The rights listed are sometimes protected at the expense of those rights not listed.

 

There is no such thing as absolute freedom SOCAL. It simply does not, and cannot exist. Even your latest poster child of anarcho-capitalism acknowledges that. (AC replaces a rule of law with a rule of finance, rather than being limited by the constraints of a democracy, AC would replace those with the constraints of financial ability.) We don't each live in a vacuum. We share the US with each other. Let's run through a quick AC example: Person A owns a tract of land. A, exercising his freedom to use the land as he pleases, builds a fence around the land. Person B wants to go onto Person A's land. Person A's fence prevents Person B from entering Person A's land. Person B's freedom is limited by Person A's exercise of his freedom to use the land as he sees fit.

 

The US Constitution functions similarly to that example. The rights listed are protected. Sometimes this protection comes at the expense of rights that are not listed in the Constitution.

 

Nobody said that it enumerated anything about the purpose of the US government except that it is a document written by the founders about government and US grievances, which I stated before. By saying:

 

"all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men."

 

Would it not be safe to assume that if the same men who signed the Constitution also signed the document with the statement above, they would likely create their own government along the lines for which the Declaration is written? If not, then what credibility do they have to even form a government?

 

Either way, lets make this simple and just ask what your idea is of the purpose of government?

 

Your response to #3 makes absolutely zero sense. You're arguing that the complaints happened before the declaration but what does it even matter? I didn't say it started with the Declaration, I said the contents of it. For if the contents of the Declaration were not the very grievances and complaints the colonist were mad and threatening about, then what would have led to the revolution and the Constitution. If it was something else, what? I think you agree with me on this point you just didn't grasp what I was saying.

 

What is not contradictory about giving up freedom to ensure freedom?

 

What you're saying is, we should all have to give up something to get something, but how can we get it, if we already gave it up? What if we don't all agree to give up the same thing? To alleviate this problem, you say we rely on the most knowledgeable, rich, electable, murderous or conniving to figure out which rights are "all-important" and which one of us gets screwed? Awesome, sounds like a great plan!!

 

You said it yourself about the Bill of Rights, "The founders thought these rights the most important to the people, and they were willing to limit other freedoms to ensure that the people enjoyed these rights." Well, who made them the all-knowing, what about the people who didn't agree to be represented by them, what about those who never voted on it and those who would never vote on it? What about the slaves, the women and the children? What about the emigrants and immigrants who came later? What about the people who weren't even born yet, who now must live with the mistakes of the "brillant" founders? Don't those rights seems like something that should be left up to the individual and not a few "elitist" men who decided they needed to rule others and founded the US government. I wasn't arguing that any document exists to give total freedom, because it doesn't and that's what I have a problem with. The contradictions within the US government are endless and what it boils down to is acknowledging them and searching for a better solution. Anarcho-Capitalism is a better solution and one with no contradictions. I'm well aware that total freedom does not exists because if it did, I'm sure someone would kill me tomorrow because they could, but there is a way to be free from the contradictions, coercion and threats of government. The freedom to do as one pleases as long as you do not infringe upon the rights, life and property of others. That's the freedom we all can share. If what we have today is the best form of government possible, then surely what we need is "no" government.

 

For some reason you seem to think that Anarcho-Capitalism doesn't have any law or when laws are broken there's no repercussions, reparation, accountability or justice. What better way to ensure justice and accountability than through the free market? If a business were in the market of justice, they sure as hell would make sure they upheld justice or they wouldn't be in the justice business very long. Security is the same way, how would you make it in the security business if nobody trusted you to protect them? In the free market, customer satisfaction is everything. Why must we all pay for something that either: a. we don't use b. we don't believe in or c. we can accomplish by our selves.

 

Do you truly believe the government's monopoly on military/police force is keeping you safe from anybody? If so, the tragedies of 9/11, the OKC bombing, Pearl Harbor, Columbine and many others incidents wouldn't have happened. Why do you think people who wish to feel safe hire private security guards? Do you truly believe the government's monopoly on the justice system is fair? Let's see, you have the government making the laws, enforcing the laws, prosecuting the laws and then you face a government judge to be sentenced. Sounds like a fair shake at justice to me!! It's no wonder our prison system is a mess and we still have criminals running rampant.

 

Anarchy is not the absence of law but the absence of rulers. Do you need somebody to rule you? I sure as hell don't. Anarchy has the most important law that could exist, the law of nature. The law that allows the individual to do as one pleases as long as it does not infringe upon the rights, property and life of others. Do you believe in private property? Do you believe in life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness? Obviously you do or you wouldn't be typing away today (unless you get the internet from jail). If you believe in those things, the answer to your little exercise is simple. Since "A" owns the land, "B" cannot do as he pleases because he would be infringing on the property rights of "A." So either "B" must go around "A's" property or come up with a way to justly compensate "A" for the use of his property. Just because "A" refuses to let "B" do as he pleases doesn't mean he is infringing upon his freedom. "A" owns the property and therefore he can do as he wishes. If he was polluting on the other hand, he would be held accountable because he is infringing upon the life of "B." Make sense??

Link to comment

 

How does your AC prevent people from being murdered, stolen from, coerced, lied to, or enslaved? How does it guarantee those freedoms?

 

I answered this on the previous post above but here's the jist of it. With the exception of lying, which is not a crime but not looked well upon, all of the above offenses are a violation of property rights, true?? So, if property rights are protected under the rule of law then there must be repurcussions and reparation when they are violated. The punishment would be dealt with in a way which the free market sees fit. Justice in the free market would be fair, honest and efficient because it would be in the best interest of those in the justice business to provide the best possible justice service. Since it is imperative to perform satisfactory service to be successful in the free market, if they did not perform justice fairly and efficiently, they wouldn't be in the justice business very long.

 

What we have today is a government monopoly on justice, which is neither fair nor efficient. If you disagree and would like to debate this point more I would be more than happy to oblige.

Link to comment

 

The Declaration of Independence does not outline our governmental system; the Constitution does. Of course the Declaration is going to emphasize personal liberties (actually referencing taxation) because that was our primary beef with GB. However, the actual formal outline of our government is provided by the Constitution and not the Declaration. The Constitution does not claim the solitary purpose you highlighted in the Declaration. The preamble states:

 

"We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

 

That is hardly the "sole purpose" that you claim for the existence of the US Government. You can't pick and choose your citations and maintain credibility...particularly when the document cited is not directly relevant.

 

1. First of all, nobody was arguing about the outline of our governmental system, rather the purpose of government. Secondly, 2. the grievances outlined in the Declaration of Independence were about a lot more than taxation, if that's what you think maybe you need to read or re-read it. Were 3. the contents of the Declaration of Independence, and the King disregarding it, not the “primary beef” for starting the revolution; leading to the founding of our country and the creation of the Constitution? If anything using that document calls into credibility those you created the documents in which the founding government of this country was based upon. Did the founders not write and sign both documents? 4. Is not the purpose of every single one of the reasons for establishing the government (a perfect union), as outlined in the Constitution, to ensure the preservation of the rights of the individual? Let’s take a look.

 

5. Establish justice = ensuring that that one individual(s), country or ruler does not trample the rights of another individual(s).

 

6. Insure domestic tranquility = ensuring that that one individual(s), country or ruler does not trample the rights of another individual(s).

 

7. Provide for the common defense = ensuring that that one individual(s), country or ruler does not trample the rights of another individual(s).

 

8. Promote the general welfare = ensuring that that one individual(s), country or ruler does not trample the rights of another individual(s).

 

9. Secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity = Do I even need to mention what this means?

 

10. If the Constitution was created for any other reason but to ensure the preservation of individual liberty doesn’t that call into question the credibility of those who wrote and signed it?

 

11. This also brings about the bigger question of how can a document claim to preserve the rights of individual freedoms, when the only way it can be implemented is through the loss of freedom?

When you can answer that with any logical and non-contradictory reason please feel free.

 

1. Who said that the declaration enumerated the purpose for the US government? It merely listed our grievances against the current ruling government, England. As far as I can recall (and I'm going from memory here) it didn't make any mention of a purpose for a new government in America, it merely stated while we were unhappy with the status quo.

 

2. Absolutely there were more grievances listed in the declaration than "taxation without representation." However, that particular grievance (taxation without representation) was absolutely the bulk of the colonists complaints. All other grievances were mere accessories to this primary complaint. Think about the purpose for the declaration. If you do that you will realize that the writers' purposes were best served by listing every single grievance they could think of, whether or not it was a huge issue to the colonists. The longer the list of grievance (real or imagined) the more impressive the document as a whole appears to the King of England and the world at large.

 

3. No. Absolutely not. The colonists complaints did not start with the declaration. The Declaration of Independence was a result of public opinion; public opinion was not a result of the Declaration. The Revolutionary War did officially begin after the Declaration, but the grievances and the threats existed long before the Declaration compiled them. What you are saying is akin to claiming the US entered WWII because FDR declared war on Japan . . . without mentioning that FDR's statement was a result of Japan's attack on Pearl Harbor.

 

4. NO! 1,000 times, no! Absolutely not. The Constitution (combined with the Bill of Rights) lists specific rights of the individual that are to be protected. Nowhere does it guarantee absolute personal freedom. There is no US founding document ANYWHERE that guarantees absolute personal freedom. (I challenge you, find me one, and I will support everything you are saying here even the things that I have previously argued. Good luck sir. It does not exist.) The Constitution combined with the Bill of Rights lists the freedoms that are protected by those documents; freedoms outside of those enumerated exist only with blessings of the state.

 

5. Establish Justice - A simple statement of this is that the US government will try to protect individuals from private wrongdoers. As in punish/imprison those who break the laws of the US. This requires an inherent loss of freedom for those wrongdoers. Let's go with a simple analogy: A man takes another's personal freedom by murdering him. That murderer in turn loses his freedom (assuming the justice system functions correctly). Therefore, "justice" in most cases limits freedoms to protect the specifically enumerated freedoms provided for in the USC.

 

6. Ensure domestic tranquility - see above #5. (How do you propose to establish justice and ensure tranquility without limiting freedoms in some way? i.e. punishment/fines/incarceration)

 

7. Provide for the common defense - Again . . . the base purpose of this may be to protect the freedoms listed in the constitution and bill of rights . . . but how can you fund a military that will accomplish this goal without taxing the citizens? This necessary function (defense of the people) again requires the partial relinquishment of financial freedoms of the people. We all must pay through taxes for our common defense.

 

8. Promote the general welfare - See #7. Promoting the general welfare will general require funding of some sort. Government cannot function in a vacuum. Even the most basic functions of the state will require taxation. (police, vote collection and counting, etc.)

 

9. Agreed. The Constitution is set to preserve the rights listed therein. Those rights will almost always require the relinquishment of some liberties to preserve the ones listed.

 

10. Not at all. The writers realized that the preservation of the all important rights listed in the USC and Bill of Rights required limiting or even relinquishing some other freedoms.

 

11. See above. (4-8 in particular.) The preservation of the specific rights listed in the USC and the Bill of Rights (freedom of speech, religion, etc. etc. etc.) The founders thought these rights the most important to the people, and they were willing to limit other freedoms to ensure that the people enjoyed these rights. There is no contradiction. The rights listed are sometimes protected at the expense of those rights not listed.

 

There is no such thing as absolute freedom SOCAL. It simply does not, and cannot exist. Even your latest poster child of anarcho-capitalism acknowledges that. (AC replaces a rule of law with a rule of finance, rather than being limited by the constraints of a democracy, AC would replace those with the constraints of financial ability.) We don't each live in a vacuum. We share the US with each other. Let's run through a quick AC example: Person A owns a tract of land. A, exercising his freedom to use the land as he pleases, builds a fence around the land. Person B wants to go onto Person A's land. Person A's fence prevents Person B from entering Person A's land. Person B's freedom is limited by Person A's exercise of his freedom to use the land as he sees fit.

 

The US Constitution functions similarly to that example. The rights listed are protected. Sometimes this protection comes at the expense of rights that are not listed in the Constitution.

 

Nobody said that it enumerated anything about the US government except that it is a document written by the founders about government and US grievances, which I stated before. By saying:

 

“all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men.”

 

Would it not be safe to assume that if the same men who signed the Constitution also signed the document with the statement above, they would likely create their own government along the lines for which the Declaration is written? If not, then what credibility do they have to even form a government?

 

Either way, lets make this simple and just ask what your idea is of the purpose of government?

 

Your response to #3 makes absolutely zero sense. You’re arguing that the complaints happened before the declaration but what does it even matter? I didn’t say it started with the Declaration, I said the contents of it. For if the contents of the Declaration were not the very grievances and complaints the colonist were mad and threatening about, then what would have led to the revolution and the Constitution. If it was something else, what? I think you agree with me on this point you just didn’t grasp what I was saying.

 

What is not contradictory about giving up freedom to ensure freedom?

 

What you're saying is, we should all have to give up something to get something, but how can we get it, if we already gave it up? What if we don't all agree to give up the same thing? To alleviate this problem, you say we rely on the most knowledgeable, rich, electable, murderous or conniving to figure out which rights are “all-important” and which one of us gets screwed? Awesome, sounds like a great plan!!

 

You said it yourself about the Bill of Rights, "The founders thought these rights the most important to the people, and they were willing to limit other freedoms to ensure that the people enjoyed these rights." Well, who made them the all-knowing, what about the people who didn't agree to be represented by them, what about those who never voted on it and those who would never vote on it? What about the slaves, the women and the children? What about the emigrants who came later? What about the people who weren't even born yet, who now must live with the mistakes of the "brillant" founders? Don’t those rights seems like something that should be left up to the individual and not a few “elitist” men who decided they needed to rule others and founded the US government. I wasn’t arguing that any document exists to give total freedom, because it doesn’t and that’s what I have a problem with. The contradictions within the US government are endless and what it boils down to is acknowledging them and searching for a better solution. Anarcho–Capitalism is a better solution and one with no contradictions. I’m well aware that total freedom does not exists because if it did, I’m sure someone would kill me tomorrow because they could, but there is a way to be free from the contradictions, coercion and threats of government. The freedom to do as one pleases as long as you do not infringe upon the rights, life and property of others. That’s the freedom we all can share. If what we have today is the best form of government possible, then surely what we need is “no” government.

 

For some reason you seem to think that Anarcho-Capitalism doesn’t have any law or when laws are broken there’s no repercussions, reparation, accountability or justice. What better way to ensure justice and accountability than through the free market? If a business were in the market of justice, they sure as hell would make sure they upheld justice or they wouldn’t be in the justice business very long. Security is the same way, how would you make it in the security business if nobody trusted you to protect them? In the free market, customer satisfaction is everything. Why must we all pay for something that either: a. we don’t use b. we don’t believe in or c. we can accomplish by our selves.

 

Do you truly believe the government’s monopoly on military/police force is keeping you safe from anybody? If so, the tragedies of 9/11, the OKC bombing, Pearl Harbor, Columbine and many others incidents wouldn’t have happened. Why do you think people who wish to feel safe hire private security guards? Do you truly believe the government’s monopoly on the justice system is fair? Let’s see, you have the government making the laws, enforcing the laws, prosecuting the laws and then you face a government judge to be sentenced. Sounds like a fair shake at justice to me!! It’s no wonder our prison system is a mess and we still have criminals running rampant.

 

Anarchy is not the absence of law but the absence of rulers. Do you need somebody to rule you? I sure as hell don’t. Anarchy has the most important law that could exist, the law of nature. The law that allows the individual to do as one pleases as long as it does not infringe upon the rights, property and life of others. Do you believe in private property? Do you believe in life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness? Obviously you do or you wouldn’t be typing away today (unless you get the internet from jail). If you believe in those things, the answer to your little exercise is simple. Since “A” owns the land, “B” cannot do as he pleases because he would be infringing on the property rights of “A.” So either “B” must go around “A’s” property or come up with a way to justly compensate “A” for the use of his property. Just because “A” refuses to let “B” do as he pleases doesn’t mean he is infringing upon his freedom. “A” owns the property and therefore he can do as he wishes. If he was polluting on the other hand, he would be held accountable because he is infringing upon the life of “B.” Make sense??

 

 

Anarchy is not the absence of law but the absence of rulers.

that includes god. Imagine by John Lennon expresses ire both at religion and government.

 

The law that allows the individual to do as one pleases as long as it does not infringe upon the rights, property and life of others.
where is the line drawn? does everyone in this world have the same set of beliefs? is abortion legal or illegal? again, god can't be in anarchist society, he's a ruler.
Link to comment

 

How does your AC prevent people from being murdered, stolen from, coerced, lied to, or enslaved? How does it guarantee those freedoms?

 

I answered this on the previous post above but here's the jist of it. With the exception of lying, which is not a crime but not looked well upon, all of the above offenses are a violation of property rights, true?? So, if property rights are protected under the rule of law then there must be repurcussions and reparation when they are violated. The punishment would be dealt with in a way which the free market sees fit. Justice in the free market would be fair, honest and efficient because it would be in the best interest of those in the justice business to provide the best possible justice service. Since it is imperative to perform satisfactory service to be successful in the free market, if they did not perform justice fairly and efficiently, they wouldn't be in the justice business very long.

 

What we have today is a government monopoly on justice, which is neither fair nor efficient. If you disagree and would like to debate this point more I would be more than happy to oblige.

 

How would the "free market" punish? (and how can they do so without reducing the freedom of those who they are punishing?) Who would mete out that punishment? The market itself isn't going to do it. Is there a council of businessmen who punishes certain crimes that are listed? If so . . . that is no longer anarcho-capitalism . . . that is a rudimentary government.

 

I'm open to hearing commentary on how the government could make a more "fair and efficient" justice system. Hopefully you can provide those suggestions where so many others have failed.

Link to comment

 

 

 

Anarchy is not the absence of law but the absence of rulers.

that includes god. Imagine by John Lennon expresses ire both at religion and government.

 

The law that allows the individual to do as one pleases as long as it does not infringe upon the rights, property and life of others.
where is the line drawn? does everyone in this world have the same set of beliefs? is abortion legal or illegal? again, god can't be in anarchist society, he's a ruler.

 

I have no clue what you are talking about here. I don't believe in god religiously or governmentally so I couldn't tell you one way or another.

 

Where is what line drawn? Property and life, how simple is that? Of course not everyone has the same beliefs but nobody needs to. They only need to respect the life and property of others, its as simple as that. If some people wish to voluntarily live by the rule of god, so be it. They can't force others to do the same, because it would be a violation of life and property.

Link to comment

**snip** (replies were getting bulky)

 

SOCAL in bold, my replies in regular font.

 

Nobody said that it enumerated anything about the purpose of the US government except that it is a document written by the founders about government and US grievances, which I stated before. By saying:

 

"all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men."

 

Would it not be safe to assume that if the same men who signed the Constitution also signed the document with the statement above, they would likely create their own government along the lines for which the Declaration is written?

 

No it would not be safe to assume that. The Declaration was about broad conceptual theories with nothing concrete about what government would result. The Constitution was a document based on the real world.

 

If not, then what credibility do they have to even form a government?

 

They have that credibility and authority because we GAVE it to them. Surely you remember the basics of democracy.

 

Either way, lets make this simple and just ask what your idea is of the purpose of government?

 

My idea of the purpose of government is to preserve important personal freedoms, provide for national defense, provide other basic services as necessary (police, infrastructure, etc.) and generally stay out of the way when they are not needed.

 

Your response to #3 makes absolutely zero sense. You're arguing that the complaints happened before the declaration but what does it even matter? I didn't say it started with the Declaration, I said the contents of it. For if the contents of the Declaration were not the very grievances and complaints the colonist were mad and threatening about, then what would have led to the revolution and the Constitution. If it was something else, what? I think you agree with me on this point you just didn't grasp what I was saying.

 

It makes perfect sense. The declaration was about the break with England. It was only obliquely about the formation of a new government.

What is not contradictory about giving up freedom to ensure freedom?

 

There you go...rephrasing the issue to serve your agenda. I said that we give up certain freedoms to ensure other freedoms. Even your proposed system requires that. My freedom to steal from you is impinged upon by your freedom to keep your possessions. All systems require some compromise of freedom. Absolute freedom is a a fallacy.

 

What you're saying is, we should all have to give up something to get something, but how can we get it, if we already gave it up? What if we don't all agree to give up the same thing? To alleviate this problem, you say we rely on the most knowledgeable, rich, electable, murderous or conniving to figure out which rights are "all-important" and which one of us gets screwed? Awesome, sounds like a great plan!!

 

That's not at all what I'm saying. I said that when we (our ancestors) adopted the constitution they agreed to give up some freedoms to ensure others. We don't have anything to "get." We already HAVE the freedoms provided for in the Constitution. Those "murderous" elected officials are constrained by the rights given the people in the Constitution.

 

You said it yourself about the Bill of Rights, "The founders thought these rights the most important to the people, and they were willing to limit other freedoms to ensure that the people enjoyed these rights." Well, who made them the all-knowing, what about the people who didn't agree to be represented by them, what about those who never voted on it and those who would never vote on it?

 

WE gave them those rights. (as in "the people.") Last I checked there is no law requiring people to stay in the US. If people disagree with the rights provided they are more than welcome to choose a country that has a system more in line with their beliefs.

What about the slaves, the women and the children?

 

These people have the same rights as others now. (now no slaves, women can vote, and children can choose upon gaining age of majority.) Again, if they have serious disagreements with the US government, they are free to choose a system more in line with their beliefs.

 

What about the emigrants and immigrants who came later?

 

Haha. Those immigrants CLEARLY chose to adopt our rules by coming here. How could that be any more obvious?

 

What about the people who weren't even born yet, who now must live with the mistakes of the "brillant" founders?

 

Again, freedom to attempt to change the system or freedom to choose a different government elsewhere.

 

Don't those rights seems like something that should be left up to the individual and not a few "elitist" men who decided they needed to rule others and founded the US government. I wasn't arguing that any document exists to give total freedom, because it doesn't and that's what I have a problem with. The contradictions within the US government are endless and what it boils down to is acknowledging them and searching for a better solution. Anarcho-Capitalism is a better solution and one with no contradictions.

 

A/C absolutely has contradictions. The same constraints on freedom would be meted out by the businessmen and the wealthy that are now dealt by the government. It's a classic example of the king is dead, long live the king.

 

I'm well aware that total freedom does not exists because if it did, I'm sure someone would kill me tomorrow because they could, but there is a way to be free from the contradictions, coercion and threats of government.

 

The freedom to do as one pleases as long as you do not infringe upon the rights, life and property of others.

 

Ummm....SOCAL....suggesting that I cannot infringe upon the rights, life, and property of others is by definition a restriction on my freedom. You are the one who is contradictory.

That's the freedom we all can share. If what we have today is the best form of government possible, then surely what we need is "no" government.

 

Right. And because our police force sometimes arrests the wrong people what we need is no police. (that was sarcasm) Your argument is illogical.

 

For some reason you seem to think that Anarcho-Capitalism doesn't have any law or when laws are broken there's no repercussions, reparation, accountability or justice. What better way to ensure justice and accountability than through the free market? If a business were in the market of justice, they sure as hell would make sure they upheld justice or they wouldn't be in the justice business very long. Security is the same way, how would you make it in the security business if nobody trusted you to protect them? In the free market, customer satisfaction is everything. Why must we all pay for something that either: a. we don't use b. we don't believe in or c. we can accomplish by our selves.

 

Once again, you will have no more freedom in a A/C system. The only difference is that the entity restricting certain freedoms is your vague notion of a "free market" rather than a government.

 

Do you truly believe the government's monopoly on military/police force is keeping you safe from anybody? If so, the tragedies of 9/11, the OKC bombing, Pearl Harbor, Columbine and many others incidents wouldn't have happened.

 

Without our military and police force 9/11 and OKC would be the least of our worries. Without a military the Japanese wouldn't have bothered with Pearl Harbor . . . they would have rolled right into San Francisco Bay and done as they pleased. You're smart enough to realize that what you just stated here is absolute bunk.

 

Why do you think people who wish to feel safe hire private security guards?

 

Who are these people? I feel safe. Between the police and my .45 I have very few worries.

 

Do you truly believe the government's monopoly on the justice system is fair? Let's see, you have the government making the laws, enforcing the laws, prosecuting the laws and then you face a government judge to be sentenced.

 

Actually, yeah. It seems very fair to me. I know several judges. For the most part they are rational and reasonable arbitrators of justice. Also, appellate opinions are published, so the public can hold judges accountable.

 

Sounds like a fair shake at justice to me!! It's no wonder our prison system is a mess and we still have criminals running rampant.

 

Criminality is more a symptom of society than about the failings of our justice system.

 

Anarchy is not the absence of law but the absence of rulers. Do you need somebody to rule you? I sure as hell don't.

 

A/C merely replaces our current "rulers" (government) with a different ruler (money/free market). It's interesting that you trumpet the free market as the perfect solution to every ill . . . it seems like you use the reverent tones usually utilized by those speaking of religion. (As in "god will provide a solution" vs. your "the free market will provide a solution.")

 

Anarchy has the most important law that could exist, the law of nature. The law that allows the individual to do as one pleases as long as it does not infringe upon the rights, property and life of others.

 

You list certain things that people can't do and still claim to be an anarchist? Hmmm.

Do you believe in private property?

 

Uhhh...yep. Currently specializing in it, thank you.

 

Do you believe in life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness?

 

Sure. Last I checked the US has honored that phrase occasionally. <_<

 

Obviously you do or you wouldn't be typing away today (unless you get the internet from jail). If you believe in those things, the answer to your little exercise is simple. Since "A" owns the land, "B" cannot do as he pleases because he would be infringing on the property rights of "A." So either "B" must go around "A's" property or come up with a way to justly compensate "A" for the use of his property. Just because "A" refuses to let "B" do as he pleases doesn't mean he is infringing upon his freedom. "A" owns the property and therefore he can do as he wishes. If he was polluting on the other hand, he would be held accountable because he is infringing upon the life of "B." Make sense??

 

No. Actually that doesn't make sense. B does not have the freedom to cross A's land without A's permission. Therefore B is not absolutely free, is he?

Link to comment

 

 

 

Anarchy is not the absence of law but the absence of rulers.

that includes god. Imagine by John Lennon expresses ire both at religion and government.

 

The law that allows the individual to do as one pleases as long as it does not infringe upon the rights, property and life of others.
where is the line drawn? does everyone in this world have the same set of beliefs? is abortion legal or illegal? again, god can't be in anarchist society, he's a ruler.

 

I have no clue what you are talking about here. I don't believe in god religiously or governmentally so I couldn't tell you one way or another.

 

Where is what line drawn? Property and life, how simple is that? Of course not everyone has the same beliefs but nobody needs to. They only need to respect the life and property of others, its as simple as that. If some people wish to voluntarily live by the rule of god, so be it. They can't force others to do the same, because it would be a violation of life and property.

neither do i. i just feel it needs to be put out there because we are on a husker board and nebraska is very religious.

Link to comment

 

How would the "free market" punish? (and how can they do so without reducing the freedom of those who they are punishing?) Who would mete out that punishment? The market itself isn't going to do it. Is there a council of businessmen who punishes certain crimes that are listed? If so . . . that is no longer anarcho-capitalism . . . that is a rudimentary government.

 

I'm open to hearing commentary on how the government could make a more "fair and efficient" justice system. Hopefully you can provide those suggestions where so many others have failed.

 

Those who commit violations in an Anarcho-Capitalist system would be held even more responsible for their actions than criminals are today. If there were no repercussions for violations against the property and life of others, would those crimes not be rampant? Also, is it a violation of freedom to hold somebody accountable for their actions which results in a violation of the property and life of others? Obviously the criminal had a choice, nobody forced him or her to violate the rights of someone else and therefore they should be held responsible.

 

In the same way the free-market functions with the justice system, the same can be said for the punishment system. It would be unfair for me to state what type of punishment is just, because that would obviously be left up to those in the punishment business and the consumers/criminals who make up the punishment market. Since it is in the best interest of those in the punishment business to mete out the fairest punishment possible, you wouldn't see the insane punishment or lack thereof that we see with the judicial system today. There would be no victimless crimes so only "true" criminals would be punished, producing justice that is fair, swift and efficient. Whether the punishment for a crime is reparation payments, confinement, or even death for that matter; the market would set the punishment. Since only those who punished fair and efficient would be sucessful in the punishment business, those who didn't punish fairly wouldn't be in the punishment business very long.

 

As for complaints/suggestions on our current system. I've stated a few starting with the government monopoly on justice, how could this be any more unfair? Also, the unfair advantages given to those with money. Do you really feel that those who receive a court appointed lawyer receive equal defense as those with the ability to hire LA's best? Should victimless crimes even be punishable, wouldn't rehab or other types of help be more warranted? Why is someone who hasn't violated the rights of anyone else even being punished? Seems to me the US justice system is more of a revenue system than a justice system.

Link to comment

i just do not understand how you don't believe in god and yet believe in the infallibility of something that is basically a figment of imagination.

 

Since it is in the best interest of those in the punishment business to mete out the fairest punishment possible, you wouldn't see the insane punishment or lack thereof that we see with the judicial system today.

 

i just imagine a McDonald's type franchiser in the punishment business. People would always go to the McDonald's type franchiser because it was cheap, easy, and convenient, not because it gave out good, quality "punishments".

 

Next thing you know, in society's terms, the McDonald's justice system would become the standard and everyone would either have to live up to that standard or carve out a niche.

 

"oh, someone raped my daughter. mcdonalds gives out too soft punishments for that, i'll go to burger king. their slogan is have it your way, and we kill rapists."

 

isn't taking away the criminals freedom if he actually didn't commit the crime, or he gets an unjust sentence for a crime he did commit all because the plaintiff went to burger king instead of mcdonalds?

Link to comment

**snip** (replies were getting bulky)

 

SOCAL in bold, my replies in regular font. SOCAL RESPONSE IN RED

 

Nobody said that it enumerated anything about the purpose of the US government except that it is a document written by the founders about government and US grievances, which I stated before. By saying:

 

"all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men."

 

Would it not be safe to assume that if the same men who signed the Constitution also signed the document with the statement above, they would likely create their own government along the lines for which the Declaration is written?

 

No it would not be safe to assume that. The Declaration was about broad conceptual theories with nothing concrete about what government would result. The Constitution was a document based on the real world.

 

You already said the Declaration was about the grievances and the threats the colonists had towards England. Were those conceptual or real world? Since they were real world that makes the docuement real world and my assumption safe.

 

If not, then what credibility do they have to even form a government?

 

They have that credibility and authority because we GAVE it to them. Surely you remember the basics of democracy.

 

Who gave them the authority, the few people who had the right to vote and voice an opinion? Certainly not you, I, women, slaves, children, anybody who wasn't alive nor nearly the entire population of North Amercia for that matter. I think you need to retract that because your "we" wasn't actually all that many.

 

Either way, lets make this simple and just ask what your idea is of the purpose of government?

 

My idea of the purpose of government is to preserve important personal freedoms, provide for national defense, provide other basic services as necessary (police, infrastructure, etc.) and generally stay out of the way when they are not needed.

 

Who gets to define important personal freedoms? What's important to you might not be important to me. Also, isn't security part of preserving freedom or is that to preserve the freedom of the government? Why can't the government just protect the rights to life and property, things we can all agree on? Oh yeah, because in order to do that, they would need to steal your money to pay for it and then kill, jail, punish anyone who didn't agree.

 

Your response to #3 makes absolutely zero sense. You're arguing that the complaints happened before the declaration but what does it even matter? I didn't say it started with the Declaration, I said the contents of it. For if the contents of the Declaration were not the very grievances and complaints the colonist were mad and threatening about, then what would have led to the revolution and the Constitution. If it was something else, what? I think you agree with me on this point you just didn't grasp what I was saying.

 

It makes perfect sense. The declaration was about the break with England. It was only obliquely about the formation of a new government.

 

Refer back to your first response. Was it reality or conceptual? You can't have it both ways.

 

What is not contradictory about giving up freedom to ensure freedom?

 

There you go...rephrasing the issue to serve your agenda. I said that we give up certain freedoms to ensure other freedoms. Even your proposed system requires that. My freedom to steal from you is impinged upon by your freedom to keep your possessions. All systems require some compromise of freedom. Absolute freedom is a a fallacy.

 

No, those were actually your words. Nobody said anything about absolute freedom, of course that's not possible. Anarcho-capitalism doesn't require a coercive government to steal your money and make rulkes you must follow without your consent. Also stealing would require you to violate my property rights and obviously that's a violation of the rule of law. No compromise of freedom is required unless you think it is ok to harm me or my property.

 

What you're saying is, we should all have to give up something to get something, but how can we get it, if we already gave it up? What if we don't all agree to give up the same thing? To alleviate this problem, you say we rely on the most knowledgeable, rich, electable, murderous or conniving to figure out which rights are "all-important" and which one of us gets screwed? Awesome, sounds like a great plan!!

 

That's not at all what I'm saying. I said that when we (our ancestors) adopted the constitution they agreed to give up some freedoms to ensure others. We don't have anything to "get." We already HAVE the freedoms provided for in the Constitution. Those "murderous" elected officials are constrained by the rights given the people in the Constitution.

 

 

Here we go with the "we" again. Maybe you need to change that to a "they" because it really wasn't all that many people. Also, if the Constitution provided for all the freedoms we should have doesn't that make us slaves and not free at all. Last time I checked working to pay someone else is not freedom but indentured servitude.

 

 

You said it yourself about the Bill of Rights, "The founders thought these rights the most important to the people, and they were willing to limit other freedoms to ensure that the people enjoyed these rights." Well, who made them the all-knowing, what about the people who didn't agree to be represented by them, what about those who never voted on it and those who would never vote on it?

 

WE gave them those rights. (as in "the people.") Last I checked there is no law requiring people to stay in the US. If people disagree with the rights provided they are more than welcome to choose a country that has a system more in line with their beliefs.

 

And the "we" again!! How about if you want to give up your rights, you can move to some place where they'll be glad to take them from you? I didn't consent to any of that, and I wasn't really given the choice of being born here, was I??

 

 

What about the slaves, the women and the children?

 

These people have the same rights as others now. (now no slaves, women can vote, and children can choose upon gaining age of majority.) Again, if they have serious disagreements with the US government, they are free to choose a system more in line with their beliefs.

 

So now that's all said and done we'll just let by-gones be by-gones... or if you don't agree with it move. That's a greta argument, but why don't you move?

 

What about the emigrants and immigrants who came later?

 

Haha. Those immigrants CLEARLY chose to adopt our rules by coming here. How could that be any more obvious?

 

Did it ever occur to you that maybe they were better off here, than the country they came from. That doesn't mean it was great. Or that maybe they were lied to about the freedoms in America. They didn't exactly have the internet in those days to confirm. What about the Indians, did they consent? If you call the Trail of Tears and reservation hopping consent, then maybe!!

 

What about the people who weren't even born yet, who now must live with the mistakes of the "brillant" founders?

 

Again, freedom to attempt to change the system or freedom to choose a different government elsewhere.

 

Again, how about you move somewhere else?

 

Don't those rights seems like something that should be left up to the individual and not a few "elitist" men who decided they needed to rule others and founded the US government. I wasn't arguing that any document exists to give total freedom, because it doesn't and that's what I have a problem with. The contradictions within the US government are endless and what it boils down to is acknowledging them and searching for a better solution. Anarcho-Capitalism is a better solution and one with no contradictions.

 

A/C absolutely has contradictions. The same constraints on freedom would be meted out by the businessmen and the wealthy that are now dealt by the government. It's a classic example of the king is dead, long live the king.

 

Name a contradiction? Preferablly something that doesn't have to do with stealing and killing, both violations of the rule of law?

 

I'm well aware that total freedom does not exists because if it did, I'm sure someone would kill me tomorrow because they could, but there is a way to be free from the contradictions, coercion and threats of government.

 

The freedom to do as one pleases as long as you do not infringe upon the rights, life and property of others.

 

Ummm....SOCAL....suggesting that I cannot infringe upon the rights, life, and property of others is by definition a restriction on my freedom. You are the one who is contradictory.

 

Is that a contradiction or preferred behavior that must happen in order for life to live on this planet?

 

 

That's the freedom we all can share. If what we have today is the best form of government possible, then surely what we need is "no" government.

 

Right. And because our police force sometimes arrests the wrong people what we need is no police. (that was sarcasm) Your argument is illogical.

 

Actually you are correct. Yes, the police make mistakes. If it was a free market security, justice, or punishment business they would be held accountable. The police are not

 

For some reason you seem to think that Anarcho-Capitalism doesn't have any law or when laws are broken there's no repercussions, reparation, accountability or justice. What better way to ensure justice and accountability than through the free market? If a business were in the market of justice, they sure as hell would make sure they upheld justice or they wouldn't be in the justice business very long. Security is the same way, how would you make it in the security business if nobody trusted you to protect them? In the free market, customer satisfaction is everything. Why must we all pay for something that either: a. we don't use b. we don't believe in or c. we can accomplish by our selves.

 

Once again, you will have no more freedom in a A/C system. The only difference is that the entity restricting certain freedoms is your vague notion of a "free market" rather than a government.

 

Are stealing and killing not rights that would be implemented in an Anarcho-Capitalist system? The government doesn't seem to mind restricting those. Also, ehat's my vague notion of the free market?

 

Do you truly believe the government's monopoly on military/police force is keeping you safe from anybody? If so, the tragedies of 9/11, the OKC bombing, Pearl Harbor, Columbine and many others incidents wouldn't have happened.

 

Without our military and police force 9/11 and OKC would be the least of our worries. Without a military the Japanese wouldn't have bothered with Pearl Harbor . . . they would have rolled right into San Francisco Bay and done as they pleased. You're smart enough to realize that what you just stated here is absolute bunk.

 

Bunk, huh?? Do you have any historical evidence to back up your argument?

 

Why do you think people who wish to feel safe hire private security guards?

 

Who are these people? I feel safe. Between the police and my .45 I have very few worries.

 

Maybe people who have somethign to protect? If the police are so great, why do yo carry a gun?

 

Do you truly believe the government's monopoly on the justice system is fair? Let's see, you have the government making the laws, enforcing the laws, prosecuting the laws and then you face a government judge to be sentenced.

 

Actually, yeah. It seems very fair to me. I know several judges. For the most part they are rational and reasonable arbitrators of justice. Also, appellate opinions are published, so the public can hold judges accountable.

 

Read my other post on the fairness of the US Judicial System!!

 

Sounds like a fair shake at justice to me!! It's no wonder our prison system is a mess and we still have criminals running rampant.

 

Criminality is more a symptom of society than about the failings of our justice system.

 

Is our society not a symptom of our system?

 

Anarchy is not the absence of law but the absence of rulers. Do you need somebody to rule you? I sure as hell don't.

 

A/C merely replaces our current "rulers" (government) with a different ruler (money/free market). It's interesting that you trumpet the free market as the perfect solution to every ill . . . it seems like you use the reverent tones usually utilized by those speaking of religion. (As in "god will provide a solution" vs. your "the free market will provide a solution.")

 

Yes, it replaces our rulers with an individual ruler. One who can actually make a rational decision on your behalf. Sounds scary doesn't, relying on one's self. Gotta hate responsibility.

 

Anarchy has the most important law that could exist, the law of nature. The law that allows the individual to do as one pleases as long as it does not infringe upon the rights, property and life of others.

 

You list certain things that people can't do and still claim to be an anarchist? Hmmm.

 

Like I said anarchy is not without laws, but without rulers. Maybe you need to recheck your definition.

 

Do you believe in private property?

 

Uhhh...yep. Currently specializing in it, thank you.

 

Do you believe in life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness?

 

Sure. Last I checked the US has honored that phrase occasionally. <_<

 

Obviously you do or you wouldn't be typing away today (unless you get the internet from jail). If you believe in those things, the answer to your little exercise is simple. Since "A" owns the land, "B" cannot do as he pleases because he would be infringing on the property rights of "A." So either "B" must go around "A's" property or come up with a way to justly compensate "A" for the use of his property. Just because "A" refuses to let "B" do as he pleases doesn't mean he is infringing upon his freedom. "A" owns the property and therefore he can do as he wishes. If he was polluting on the other hand, he would be held accountable because he is infringing upon the life of "B." Make sense??

 

No. Actually that doesn't make sense. B does not have the freedom to cross A's land without A's permission. Therefore B is not absolutely free, is he?

 

Free to do as he pleases as long as he doesn't infringe upon the life and property of others. Free to live without the threat of coercion or force. That sounds pretty free to me.

Link to comment

**snip** (replies were getting bulky)

 

SOCAL in bold, my replies in regular font. SOCAL RESPONSE IN RED

 

Nobody said that it enumerated anything about the purpose of the US government except that it is a document written by the founders about government and US grievances, which I stated before. By saying:

 

"all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men."

 

Would it not be safe to assume that if the same men who signed the Constitution also signed the document with the statement above, they would likely create their own government along the lines for which the Declaration is written?

 

No it would not be safe to assume that. The Declaration was about broad conceptual theories with nothing concrete about what government would result. The Constitution was a document based on the real world.

 

You already said the Declaration was about the grievances and the threats the colonists had towards England. Were those conceptual or real world? Since they were real world that makes the docuement real world and my assumption safe.

 

If not, then what credibility do they have to even form a government?

 

They have that credibility and authority because we GAVE it to them. Surely you remember the basics of democracy.

 

Who gave them the authority, the few people who had the right to vote and voice an opinion? Certainly not you, I, women, slaves, children, anybody who wasn't alive nor nearly the entire population of North Amercia for that matter. I think you need to retract that because your "we" wasn't actually all that many.

 

Either way, lets make this simple and just ask what your idea is of the purpose of government?

 

My idea of the purpose of government is to preserve important personal freedoms, provide for national defense, provide other basic services as necessary (police, infrastructure, etc.) and generally stay out of the way when they are not needed.

 

Who gets to define important personal freedoms? What's important to you might not be important to me. Also, isn't security part of preserving freedom or is that to preserve the freedom of the government? Why can't the government just protect the rights to life and property, things we can all agree on? Oh yeah, because in order to do that, they would need to steal your money to pay for it and then kill, jail, punish anyone who didn't agree.

 

Your response to #3 makes absolutely zero sense. You're arguing that the complaints happened before the declaration but what does it even matter? I didn't say it started with the Declaration, I said the contents of it. For if the contents of the Declaration were not the very grievances and complaints the colonist were mad and threatening about, then what would have led to the revolution and the Constitution. If it was something else, what? I think you agree with me on this point you just didn't grasp what I was saying.

 

It makes perfect sense. The declaration was about the break with England. It was only obliquely about the formation of a new government.

 

Refer back to your first response. Was it reality or conceptual? You can't have it both ways.

 

What is not contradictory about giving up freedom to ensure freedom?

 

There you go...rephrasing the issue to serve your agenda. I said that we give up certain freedoms to ensure other freedoms. Even your proposed system requires that. My freedom to steal from you is impinged upon by your freedom to keep your possessions. All systems require some compromise of freedom. Absolute freedom is a a fallacy.

 

No, those were actually your words. Nobody said anything about absolute freedom, of course that's not possible. Anarcho-capitalism doesn't require a coercive government to steal your money and make rulkes you must follow without your consent. Also stealing would require you to violate my property rights and obviously that's a violation of the rule of law. No compromise of freedom is required unless you think it is ok to harm me or my property.

 

What you're saying is, we should all have to give up something to get something, but how can we get it, if we already gave it up? What if we don't all agree to give up the same thing? To alleviate this problem, you say we rely on the most knowledgeable, rich, electable, murderous or conniving to figure out which rights are "all-important" and which one of us gets screwed? Awesome, sounds like a great plan!!

 

That's not at all what I'm saying. I said that when we (our ancestors) adopted the constitution they agreed to give up some freedoms to ensure others. We don't have anything to "get." We already HAVE the freedoms provided for in the Constitution. Those "murderous" elected officials are constrained by the rights given the people in the Constitution.

 

 

Here we go with the "we" again. Maybe you need to change that to a "they" because it really wasn't all that many people. Also, if the Constitution provided for all the freedoms we should have doesn't that make us slaves and not free at all. Last time I checked working to pay someone else is not freedom but indentured servitude.

 

 

You said it yourself about the Bill of Rights, "The founders thought these rights the most important to the people, and they were willing to limit other freedoms to ensure that the people enjoyed these rights." Well, who made them the all-knowing, what about the people who didn't agree to be represented by them, what about those who never voted on it and those who would never vote on it?

 

WE gave them those rights. (as in "the people.") Last I checked there is no law requiring people to stay in the US. If people disagree with the rights provided they are more than welcome to choose a country that has a system more in line with their beliefs.

 

And the "we" again!! How about if you want to give up your rights, you can move to some place where they'll be glad to take them from you? I didn't consent to any of that, and I wasn't really given the choice of being born here, was I??

 

 

What about the slaves, the women and the children?

 

These people have the same rights as others now. (now no slaves, women can vote, and children can choose upon gaining age of majority.) Again, if they have serious disagreements with the US government, they are free to choose a system more in line with their beliefs.

 

So now that's all said and done we'll just let by-gones be by-gones... or if you don't agree with it move. That's a greta argument, but why don't you move?

 

What about the emigrants and immigrants who came later?

 

Haha. Those immigrants CLEARLY chose to adopt our rules by coming here. How could that be any more obvious?

 

Did it ever occur to you that maybe they were better off here, than the country they came from. That doesn't mean it was great. Or that maybe they were lied to about the freedoms in America. They didn't exactly have the internet in those days to confirm. What about the Indians, did they consent? If you call the Trail of Tears and reservation hopping consent, then maybe!!

 

What about the people who weren't even born yet, who now must live with the mistakes of the "brillant" founders?

 

Again, freedom to attempt to change the system or freedom to choose a different government elsewhere.

 

Again, how about you move somewhere else?

 

Don't those rights seems like something that should be left up to the individual and not a few "elitist" men who decided they needed to rule others and founded the US government. I wasn't arguing that any document exists to give total freedom, because it doesn't and that's what I have a problem with. The contradictions within the US government are endless and what it boils down to is acknowledging them and searching for a better solution. Anarcho-Capitalism is a better solution and one with no contradictions.

 

A/C absolutely has contradictions. The same constraints on freedom would be meted out by the businessmen and the wealthy that are now dealt by the government. It's a classic example of the king is dead, long live the king.

 

Name a contradiction? Preferablly something that doesn't have to do with stealing and killing, both violations of the rule of law?

 

I'm well aware that total freedom does not exists because if it did, I'm sure someone would kill me tomorrow because they could, but there is a way to be free from the contradictions, coercion and threats of government.

 

The freedom to do as one pleases as long as you do not infringe upon the rights, life and property of others.

 

Ummm....SOCAL....suggesting that I cannot infringe upon the rights, life, and property of others is by definition a restriction on my freedom. You are the one who is contradictory.

 

Is that a contradiction or preferred behavior that must happen in order for life to live on this planet?

 

 

That's the freedom we all can share. If what we have today is the best form of government possible, then surely what we need is "no" government.

 

Right. And because our police force sometimes arrests the wrong people what we need is no police. (that was sarcasm) Your argument is illogical.

 

Actually you are correct. Yes, the police make mistakes. If it was a free market security, justice, or punishment business they would be held accountable. The police are not

 

For some reason you seem to think that Anarcho-Capitalism doesn't have any law or when laws are broken there's no repercussions, reparation, accountability or justice. What better way to ensure justice and accountability than through the free market? If a business were in the market of justice, they sure as hell would make sure they upheld justice or they wouldn't be in the justice business very long. Security is the same way, how would you make it in the security business if nobody trusted you to protect them? In the free market, customer satisfaction is everything. Why must we all pay for something that either: a. we don't use b. we don't believe in or c. we can accomplish by our selves.

 

Once again, you will have no more freedom in a A/C system. The only difference is that the entity restricting certain freedoms is your vague notion of a "free market" rather than a government.

 

Are stealing and killing not rights that would be implemented in an Anarcho-Capitalist system? The government doesn't seem to mind restricting those. Also, ehat's my vague notion of the free market?

 

Do you truly believe the government's monopoly on military/police force is keeping you safe from anybody? If so, the tragedies of 9/11, the OKC bombing, Pearl Harbor, Columbine and many others incidents wouldn't have happened.

 

Without our military and police force 9/11 and OKC would be the least of our worries. Without a military the Japanese wouldn't have bothered with Pearl Harbor . . . they would have rolled right into San Francisco Bay and done as they pleased. You're smart enough to realize that what you just stated here is absolute bunk.

 

Bunk, huh?? Do you have any historical evidence to back up your argument?

 

Why do you think people who wish to feel safe hire private security guards?

 

Who are these people? I feel safe. Between the police and my .45 I have very few worries.

 

Maybe people who have somethign to protect? If the police are so great, why do yo carry a gun?

 

Do you truly believe the government's monopoly on the justice system is fair? Let's see, you have the government making the laws, enforcing the laws, prosecuting the laws and then you face a government judge to be sentenced.

 

Actually, yeah. It seems very fair to me. I know several judges. For the most part they are rational and reasonable arbitrators of justice. Also, appellate opinions are published, so the public can hold judges accountable.

 

Read my other post on the fairness of the US Judicial System!!

 

Sounds like a fair shake at justice to me!! It's no wonder our prison system is a mess and we still have criminals running rampant.

 

Criminality is more a symptom of society than about the failings of our justice system.

 

Is our society not a symptom of our system?

 

Anarchy is not the absence of law but the absence of rulers. Do you need somebody to rule you? I sure as hell don't.

 

A/C merely replaces our current "rulers" (government) with a different ruler (money/free market). It's interesting that you trumpet the free market as the perfect solution to every ill . . . it seems like you use the reverent tones usually utilized by those speaking of religion. (As in "god will provide a solution" vs. your "the free market will provide a solution.")

 

Yes, it replaces our rulers with an individual ruler. One who can actually make a rational decision on your behalf. Sounds scary doesn't, relying on one's self. Gotta hate responsibility.

 

Anarchy has the most important law that could exist, the law of nature. The law that allows the individual to do as one pleases as long as it does not infringe upon the rights, property and life of others.

 

You list certain things that people can't do and still claim to be an anarchist? Hmmm.

 

Like I said anarchy is not without laws, but without rulers. Maybe you need to recheck your definition.

 

Do you believe in private property?

 

Uhhh...yep. Currently specializing in it, thank you.

 

Do you believe in life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness?

 

Sure. Last I checked the US has honored that phrase occasionally. <_<

 

Obviously you do or you wouldn't be typing away today (unless you get the internet from jail). If you believe in those things, the answer to your little exercise is simple. Since "A" owns the land, "B" cannot do as he pleases because he would be infringing on the property rights of "A." So either "B" must go around "A's" property or come up with a way to justly compensate "A" for the use of his property. Just because "A" refuses to let "B" do as he pleases doesn't mean he is infringing upon his freedom. "A" owns the property and therefore he can do as he wishes. If he was polluting on the other hand, he would be held accountable because he is infringing upon the life of "B." Make sense??

 

No. Actually that doesn't make sense. B does not have the freedom to cross A's land without A's permission. Therefore B is not absolutely free, is he?

 

Free to do as he pleases as long as he doesn't infringe upon the life and property of others. Free to live without the threat of coercion or force. That sounds pretty free to me.

 

1. Try not to complicate this: We have A. the grievances against England as listed in the Declaration, and B. the outline of the purposes for our new government as listed in the Constitution. A is not the same as B.

 

2. Why would I leave the US? I am satisfied with our governmental system. You are the one on the crusade against it, hence why I suggested that if you are so dissatisfied maybe you could find a place more in line with your personal beliefs.

 

3. You say that only a few people chose which personal freedoms were the most important. You also state that A/C will rely on a rule of law...but who creates this rule of law? People...and if those people create a rule of law they are de facto rulers. As in....this is not anarchy. It just means our rules are enforced by a different group of people.

 

4. The police aren't held accountable?! Since when? Every time they are caught with good evidence they are punished by the same justice system.

 

5. Again, why would I (someone reasonably satisfied with our government) move. YOU are the one who is apparently unhappy.

 

6. No offense, I don't need to read your post on the judicial system. I'm guessing I'm a little more familiar with it than yourself.

 

7. Seriously? You don't think someone would have invaded the US in the last 230 odd years if we didn't have a military? We are rich in natural resources...all of history suggests that people are willing to fight to conquer land. (hell our own history suggests that.) I really don't think I need to provide a link for that...if you insist I think I could find one or two . . . <_<

 

8. I don't carry a .45. I have one in my house. I don't have it because I don't feel safe. I own it because I enjoy shooting it. If the police don't stop a criminal from entering my house, I will do so. How does this show that I don't trust the police?

 

9. Absolutely not. Our system has remained largely the same while our society has fluctuated.

 

10. How does your "rule of laws" not rule you? How is that any different than a person "ruling" you? (as in who makes the rule of laws, and how do they make it?)

 

11. Laws ARE rulers, sir. Enforcers of laws likewise.

 

12. Yes, I do trust our court system to do the right things more than I trust business to do the right things.

 

13. SOCAL: "Free to do as he pleases as long as he doesn't infringe upon the life and property of others. Free to live without the threat of coercion or force." - So you are willing to give up some rights (the right to steal, kill, pillage, etc.) to ensure the freedom of others, eh? So you are giving up freedoms to ensure other freedoms?! Gasp! That sounds terrible! Oh wait . . . that is the exact same thing as provided for in our current system. Hmmm....

Link to comment

i just do not understand how you don't believe in god and yet believe in the infallibility of something that is basically a figment of imagination.

 

Since it is in the best interest of those in the punishment business to mete out the fairest punishment possible, you wouldn't see the insane punishment or lack thereof that we see with the judicial system today.

 

i just imagine a McDonald's type franchiser in the punishment business. People would always go to the McDonald's type franchiser because it was cheap, easy, and convenient, not because it gave out good, quality "punishments".

 

Next thing you know, in society's terms, the McDonald's justice system would become the standard and everyone would either have to live up to that standard or carve out a niche.

 

"oh, someone raped my daughter. mcdonalds gives out too soft punishments for that, i'll go to burger king. their slogan is have it your way, and we kill rapists."

 

isn't taking away the criminals freedom if he actually didn't commit the crime, or he gets an unjust sentence for a crime he did commit all because the plaintiff went to burger king instead of mcdonalds?

 

It's easy to believe in something when the logic of it makes so much sense and the proof is staring you right in the face, punching you squarely in the nose. A figment of imagination, I doubt it!! Belief in god requires faith, nothing more than a feeling, and no proof whatsoever. This blind and illogical viewpoint is something that I will never comprehend nor sanction, but to each his own!!

 

As for your scenario, just two more reasons why you'll never be successful in the punishment business. :) As is the case with any business wishing to succeed in the free market, they must provide the best possible service for the best possible price. Therefore, it is in the best interest of those in the punishment business to give out the most fair punishment at the most fair price, if they didn't they would never have any business and would eventually go broke.

 

In both your scenarios, you speak as if those accused of a crime would have absolutely no say in how they are tried or punished. The markets of the justice and punishment businesses always includes the business itself, the consumers and those accused of a crime. As it should be with any fair judicial system, the accused in an anarcho-capitalist system is also entitled to testify, cross-exam and appeal to any other punishment business, for that's the only way a fair and just punishment could ever be handed down. Of course, when all is sorted out either those convicted of a crime or those who falsely accuse someone of a crime, either is held accountable for the cost of the precedings and any damages/fines/punishment/reparation/confinement.

Link to comment
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

Visit the Sports Illustrated Husker site



×
×
  • Create New...