SOCAL's Razor

[SOCALHUSKER]

Anarchy would have a tough time working here and now, due to the immense amount of greedy, idiotic, douchebags running around.

 

If everyone was nice enough to give me a heads up though, on when the proverbial sh*t was going to hit the fan, so that I could get my family to my mom's place in SD, i'd be more than happy to watch folks wipe themselves out.

I don't think anybody is arguing that it could happen here and now, but rather that it is moral, just, efficent and non-contradictory; and when a majority of individuals are educated enough to accept responsibility for their actions it will be that way. The evolution of man is slowly but surely moving that direction and at the accelerated rate that government is completely f@cking everything up, that time will come sooner rather than later. You are correct that sh@t would hit the fan if government dissolved today, but I'd attribute that more to dependancy upon government, which breeds irresponsibility and further dependancy, rather than merely on individual greed or sheer idiocy.

 

Also, anarchy does not imply that individuals cannot voluntarily keep paying a protector such as government, though it wouldn't necessarily be a government if it was voluntary, but rather that those individuals who do not want to pay, or would rather pay someone else, be allowed to make that choice voluntarily. And to Husker X, anarchy is not simply the absence of government, as you describe in your scenario of Montreal, but the absence of rulers. There's a difference between the chaos and violence stemming from government, the effects of the dissolution of that intervention and the spontaneous order of anarchy that arises when individuals are allowed to make their own choices and are held accountable for them.

 

BTW, what makes you think that folks would wipe themselves out? How much protection do you and your neighbors need on a daily basis? How many murderers, rapist, and other violent scum do you personally know? When's the last time you were assaulted, robbed, or theatened by someone other than those wearing a badge? And that's not to say that it doesn't happen, but the chances are unlikely. Most people, even some on this board, will tell you that it's not the majority of people they are worried about, but just those few who do and will act irrational. How much protection from those type of people do you need and is that protection provided by law enforcement and military defense? How much do you currently pay for that protection? Do you know what the success rate is for the protection and defense of private property or the solving rate for violations? Could the cost and success rate be tied to the fact that a coercive monopoly cannot measure profit and loss and therefore cannot know whether or not they are providing a good or bad service? Is it ok, moral or just to steal money from an individual in order to pay for defense because you subjectively believe that you need more protection?

[Husker_x]

I think it should also be pointed out that SOCAL isn't really representing anarchism. Based on what I've read he's an anarcho-capitalist, or an individualist anarchist who promotes the disillusion of government in favor of free markets and property ownership. What's bizarre about this is it actually seems that this viewpoint is a minority even among anarchists. Most of the literature I dredge up through Google indicates that many anarchists prefer the idea of no property, let alone property rights, at all. So for anyone following this discussion, bear in mind even if everyone became an anarchist today you're only halfway there.

 

I say that to bring around my more important point in this debate, which is that anarchy implies precisely nothing except the absence of government or governors. Much like atheism only means "not theism" and nothing else, anarchy itself is mere placeholder for any number of subsequent opinions. SOCAL and I had a discussion about this awhile back, and my practical questions so far as I can remember went unanswered.

 

1. How do you establish property rights?

 

2. How do you establish personal rights?

 

3. How do you enforce the 'law' or punish those that discard them?

 

And I will repeat, very plainly, for the sake of painful clarity, that the underlying and unfounded assumption of SOCAL's entire position is that almost the entire population of a given landmass will agree to uphold numbers 1 and 2. Which, judging by the history of the world and many modern states, gangs, mafias, and mobs, is wishful thinking at best.

[SOCALHUSKER]

If I may...

 

A lack of government is impossible if you want to live a free life. America is the most "free" nation in the world. You do almost anything and say almost anything without any repercussions. Sure, we have rules and laws to regulate just how far you can go; but for the most part, it's a free society. Now, you could say that you would obviously live a free life without government, because then nobody would be telling you what to do. But there are only two outcomes for this either A) everything falls into chaos or B ) another government will take over.

 

If one government fails, another "government" will always step in and seize control. It may not be the type of government we are used to, but if a bunch of pirates floated over to America and seized control, they would be our government. Or, more or less, the governing body that is responsible for the way we live our lives, the taxes we pay, the protection we get, etc. etc. There will always be some form of hierarchy. It is impossible for billions of people to co-exist without some sort of leadership, which is why Knapplc's limited governemt is wholly rational. Limited government is about as far as you can go before the world falls into chaos.

 

Besides, in some situations, thievery is warranted. But, not thievery in the sense of stealing inanimate objects. IMHO, thievery covers a lot of things...things like theft of life, theft of love, theft of allegiance, etc. Killing is, in one form or another, theft. In the 1940's, Japan stole the lives of many Americans and stole our feeling of safety with the Pearl Harbor attacks. In the act of protecting our home and protecting the world as a whole from tyrannical leadership, we traveled overseas and stole the lives of Axis powers so that our way of life couldn't be changed. So, as I said, thievery is in some cases necessary.

Where or what is your proof that only two outcomes exist and no alternatives? Like many of the other posters, what you present is what is commonly known as a false dichotomy. A fallacy in which only two choices are given when other alternatives do exist. Maybe no alternatves exist in your own little world, and one shared by many products of the giant propaganda machine, but in reality there are always alternatives, and the one that I subscribe to is one of them.

 

And no offense but your pirate scenario is equally fallacious and absurd. For instances, if the US government collapsed, how is a band of pirates going to conquer all the land and force all the individuals to obey their laws and pay taxes? You're assuming that someohow the pirates will be seen as legitimate and have all the money, resources and knowledge to control a continent, where does that come from?

 

And just like knapplc, you claim that limited government is rational, but how? This is too assume a few things: 1. That limited government is even a possible in reality and 2. That theft is rational. What magical solution do know of that keeps a government limited, the Constitution? And if theft is rational, why can't anyone steal? Since neither of these are possible to maintaining any type of social order, the entire concept of limited government is neither rational nor sustainable. You also claim that billions of people cannot coexist without leadership, but government is not leadership. Yes, leaders may exist in government, but do leaders not exist unless you stick a gun in someone's face and force them to pay for things?

 

And as for situations of warranted thievery, most are defensive tactics which are justified when someone has already initiated violence against you or your property. However, the idea that initiating theft can solve problems has got to be the most illogical and backwards ass statement that I have ever read. How does initiating theft against someone prevent them from altering your lifestyle? In fact, doesn't that beg retaliation? What about the sociological effects of the actions displayed, does that not breed more theft, killing and violence? Once again you assume that the only alternative to submission is theft and violence, which couldn't be further from the truth. Theft is never necessary.

[knapplc]

Where or what is your proof that only two outcomes exist and no alternatives?

 

His proof lies in recorded history. There has never been a sustained culture that didn't have a form of government, or in the absence of government, chaos.

 

In fact, he has infinitely more proof that his theory is correct than you have for yours, yet you continue to hector anyone who gainsays you. The problem with your hippopotamus applesauce anarchy is that it has never existed anywhere, just like unicorns. It hasn't existed anywhere because it's simply not a feasible form of society.

[Enhance]

If I may...

 

A lack of government is impossible if you want to live a free life. America is the most "free" nation in the world. You do almost anything and say almost anything without any repercussions. Sure, we have rules and laws to regulate just how far you can go; but for the most part, it's a free society. Now, you could say that you would obviously live a free life without government, because then nobody would be telling you what to do. But there are only two outcomes for this either A) everything falls into chaos or B ) another government will take over.

 

If one government fails, another "government" will always step in and seize control. It may not be the type of government we are used to, but if a bunch of pirates floated over to America and seized control, they would be our government. Or, more or less, the governing body that is responsible for the way we live our lives, the taxes we pay, the protection we get, etc. etc. There will always be some form of hierarchy. It is impossible for billions of people to co-exist without some sort of leadership, which is why Knapplc's limited governemt is wholly rational. Limited government is about as far as you can go before the world falls into chaos.

 

Besides, in some situations, thievery is warranted. But, not thievery in the sense of stealing inanimate objects. IMHO, thievery covers a lot of things...things like theft of life, theft of love, theft of allegiance, etc. Killing is, in one form or another, theft. In the 1940's, Japan stole the lives of many Americans and stole our feeling of safety with the Pearl Harbor attacks. In the act of protecting our home and protecting the world as a whole from tyrannical leadership, we traveled overseas and stole the lives of Axis powers so that our way of life couldn't be changed. So, as I said, thievery is in some cases necessary.

Where or what is your proof that only two outcomes exist and no alternatives? Like many of the other posters, what you present is what is commonly known as a false dichotomy. A fallacy in which only two choices are given when other alternatives do exist. Maybe no alternatves exist in your own little world, and one shared by many products of the giant propaganda machine, but in reality there are always alternatives, and the one that I subscribe to is one of them.

 

And no offense but your pirate scenario is equally fallacious and absurd. For instances, if the US government collapsed, how is a band of pirates going to conquer all the land and force all the individuals to obey their laws and pay taxes? You're assuming that someohow the pirates will be seen as legitimate and have all the money, resources and knowledge to control a continent, where does that come from?

 

And just like knapplc, you claim that limited government is rational, but how? This is too assume a few things: 1. That limited government is even a possible in reality and 2. That theft is rational. What magical solution do know of that keeps a government limited, the Constitution? And if theft is rational, why can't anyone steal? Since neither of these are possible to maintaining any type of social order, the entire concept of limited government is neither rational nor sustainable. You also claim that billions of people cannot coexist without leadership, but government is not leadership. Yes, leaders may exist in government, but do leaders not exist unless you stick a gun in someone's face and force them to pay for things?

 

And as for situations of warranted thievery, most are defensive tactics which are justified when someone has already initiated violence against you or your property. However, the idea that initiating theft can solve problems has got to be the most illogical and backwards ass statement that I have ever read. How does initiating theft against someone prevent them from altering your lifestyle? In fact, doesn't that beg retaliation? What about the sociological effects of the actions displayed, does that not breed more theft, killing and violence? Once again you assume that the only alternative to submission is theft and violence, which couldn't be further from the truth. Theft is never necessary.

Ok, let's do this in a list.

 

1) Knapplc stole my thunder (but said it better than I could lol). What he said garners my reasoning for why there are only two options, because anything else has rarely if ever been seen before nor has it ever been successful for long periods of time. If it has happened before, then show me proof. I will throw back at you countless history books on civilization, which ones were successful, and which ones faltered.

 

2) I never once said that initiating theft was O.K. In fact, the example I gave was in reference to WWII where we retaliated after we had been attacked. Therefore, that is what you call a "defensive tactic". We were protecting ourselves. So please, if you want me to take your opinion seriously then take what I say seriously.

 

3) My pirate example is not outrageous, because it outlines just how uncivilized your idea of living could be. I don't have to go into great detail with an example about pirates because come on...they're effing pirates man. It's a hypothetical situation. You don't have to get warped and twisted over something as minuscule like that.

 

4) You do realize that you went two different directions in your last paragraph, correct? First, you said that warranted thievery is O.K. in situations marked defensive. Yet, your last line then states that that "thievery is never necessary". If you meant unwarranted thievery is never necessary, then you should have made it more clear because by the end of your paragraph it seems like you don't know what you're saying. Your definition of thievery is one-side and narrow-minded. Thievery covers a broad spectrum of things, as I outlined in my first paragraph. Theft of life, theft of property, theft of love, etc. all fall under thievery. Initiating theft is wrong, if it is unwarranted, but there are some situations where theft is O.K. So, we actually agree on this point, to some degree.

 

5) Last but not least, stop being such a zealous @$$hole about your opinions. I never once insulted your ideas nor did I say they were idiotic or stupid. Yet, you ripped through my post as if I had. You are in the minority on this board in your beliefs. You are coming off as tyrannical. Just because most of the board disagrees with you doesn't mean you have to insult others opinions. I did not insult your opinions, and if you would like people to take you seriously then I would suggest doing the same

 

Discussing this with you is like trying to have a discussion with the WBC, ergo I will not be continuing to do so.

[SOCALHUSKER]

I think it should also be pointed out that SOCAL isn't really representing anarchism. Based on what I've read he's an anarcho-capitalist, or an individualist anarchist who promotes the disillusion of government in favor of free markets and property ownership. What's bizarre about this is it actually seems that this viewpoint is a minority even among anarchists. Most of the literature I dredge up through Google indicates that many anarchists prefer the idea of no property, let alone property rights, at all. So for anyone following this discussion, bear in mind even if everyone became an anarchist today you're only halfway there.

 

I say that to bring around my more important point in this debate, which is that anarchy implies precisely nothing except the absence of government or governors. Much like atheism only means "not theism" and nothing else, anarchy itself is mere placeholder for any number of subsequent opinions. SOCAL and I had a discussion about this awhile back, and my practical questions so far as I can remember went unanswered.

 

1. How do you establish property rights?

 

2. How do you establish personal rights?

 

3. How do you enforce the 'law' or punish those that discard them?

 

And I will repeat, very plainly, for the sake of painful clarity, that the underlying and unfounded assumption of SOCAL's entire position is that almost the entire population of a given landmass will agree to uphold numbers 1 and 2. Which, judging by the history of the world and many modern states, gangs, mafias, and mobs, is wishful thinking at best.

Actually, yes I do represent anarchism, anarcho-capitalism, market-anarchism, voluntaryism, individual-anarchism, libertarianism or any other term that describes a philospohy in which individuals are left alone, without threat of theft or violence from a coercive monopoly, to volutarily make their own decisions and choices as long as they don't infringe upon other people, their property or their ability to do the same. Call it what you will, but it is a philosophy of "no rulers," and otherwise known as anarchy. Some so-called "anarchist" may be against property, property rights, or any other individual preference, but if they what they advocate includes initiating violence against others to achieve their ends, that simply means that they are confused, have contradictions in their philosophy, and are not really for a system without rulers, but instead a system in which they rule.

 

And as for your questions, I believe I have answered them numerous times, but here it goes:

 

1 & 2. Simply put, personal and property rights, which are one and the same, are established through self-ownership and homesteading. Self-ownership is based upon objectivenatural law/rightsand more specifically upon the birth of an individual. Since each person is born with the distinct ability to control their own body and mind it is logically deduced that each individual owns himself. Since an individual does own himself, and therefore by extension his labor and products of his labor, and only he alone can make choices and decisions for himself and his property; it is only the individual who has the right to decide, amongst other things, the labor he partakes in, what he puts in his body, what he exchanges and who he trades and associates with. Any infringement upon an individual's person, their rightfully gained property, or their ability to make a voluntary choice is a violation of their property rights.

 

As it is explained in Ch. 4 "Justice and Property Rights by Murray Rothbard, "Since the nature of man is such that each individual must use his mind to learn about himself and the world, to select values, and to choose ends and means in order to survive and flourish, the right to self-ownership gives each man the right to perform these vital activities without being hampered and restricted by coercive molestation."

 

The other means for establishing property rights is through homesteading. This simply means, "the absolute right in material property of the person who first finds an unused material resource and then in some way occupies or transforms that resource by the use of his personal energy."

 

As Locke states, "...every man has a property in his own person. This nobody has any right to but himself. The labour of his body and the work of his hands, we may say, are properly his. Whatsoever, then, he removes out of the state that nature hath provided and left it in, he hath mixed his labour with it, and joined to it something that is his own, and thereby makes it his property. It being by him removed from the common state nature placed it in, it hath by this labour something annexed to it that excludes the common right of other men."

 

So, because self-ownership and homesteading are the only objective, logical and moral means for establishing property rights, it is no wonder that in a system run by a coercive monopoly, one based upon subjective legislation, that neither property rights nor justice can or will ever be obtained.

 

3. Since property rights are the only objective rights, the only law in a free society would be that no individual, or group of people, can initiate physical force, the threat of force, or any substitute for force(fraud) against any other individual, group of people, or their property. This is a rule that is pretty much followed by nearly everyone anyways, the exceptions being government and a few irrational individuals, so this idea that you put forth, that much effort is required to gain compliance, enforce and administer punishment for it, is quite absurd. Compliance requires personal responsibility and consequences; enforcement requires that businesses freely compete for voluntary customers and profits to ensure that property rights are not violated and if they are that they are brought to justice; and punishment requires that businesses freely compete for voluntary customers and profits to ensure that property rights are restored fully.

 

Since individuals value their property, which once again nearly everyone does, it is guaranteed that individuals would be willing to take measures to either protect it themselves or would voluntarily pay someone else to protect it. Though I can't predict the future or know exactly what the market will look like, more than likely competing insurance companies would arise, which would allow individuals to pool there money for defense, uphold contracts, undertake investigations, settle disputes, cover losses until reparations were made, and ensure compliance with arbitration. The key here though, is that the everything is voluntary.

 

If you thought that you could defend yourself and your property and saw no need to pay someone else for his service, you simply would not pay. However, besides the lack of service, you could also mean risking the possibility that certain individuals would not do business with you. Or maybe that unless you were well off you would be short any money or property was lost until justice was served. Even worse, is the possiblity that if somebody violated you, you would then have to take matters into your own hands, ensuring that you did not violate anyone beyond what justice was, lest you be charged with a violation.

 

Obviously a demand for protection and justice, which you and countless others on this board have already shown, does exist. How it is doled out is simply up to the values and preferences of all the actors that make up the market. Since a free and voluntary market requires customer satisfaction (you may claim that it doesn't, however I have yet to see any logical explanation, short of a false dichotomy, to show how a business using theft or violence can exist in a free market) it is guaranteed that only the businesses that provides the best services at the best prices will succeed. If a business claims to dole out justice, yet they constantly infringe upon other individual's rights or provide less than stellar justice, how is it that they will keep gaining profits from unsatisfied customers? If they infringe upon other's rights they will find themselves being brought to justice by their competition, which is always looking for a leg up, and if they provide less than stellar justice they will find that nobody wants to do business with them and their competition will drive them out of business. Free people operating in free markets are the answer.

[SOCALHUSKER]

Where or what is your proof that only two outcomes exist and no alternatives?

 

His proof lies in recorded history. There has never been a sustained culture that didn't have a form of government, or in the absence of government, chaos.

 

In fact, he has infinitely more proof that his theory is correct than you have for yours, yet you continue to hector anyone who gainsays you. The problem with your hippopotamus applesauce anarchy is that it has never existed anywhere, just like unicorns. It hasn't existed anywhere because it's simply not a feasible form of society.

Just as the world is still flat, slavery still exists, airplanes have never left the ground and information is not transferred through space. The argument that simply because something has not existed or has not been done in history does not make a valid argument for it not to be feasible. Especially in case of an argument that is based on logical reality, backed up with historical evidence and without contradiction.

[SOCALHUSKER]

Ok, let's do this in a list.

 

1) Knapplc stole my thunder (but said it better than I could lol). What he said garners my reasoning for why there are only two options, because anything else has rarely if ever been seen before nor has it ever been successful for long periods of time. If it has happened before, then show me proof. I will throw back at you countless history books on civilization, which ones were successful, and which ones faltered.

 

2) I never once said that initiating theft was O.K. In fact, the example I gave was in reference to WWII where we retaliated after we had been attacked. Therefore, that is what you call a "defensive tactic". We were protecting ourselves. So please, if you want me to take your opinion seriously then take what I say seriously.

 

3) My pirate example is not outrageous, because it outlines just how uncivilized your idea of living could be. I don't have to go into great detail with an example about pirates because come on...they're effing pirates man. It's a hypothetical situation. You don't have to get warped and twisted over something as minuscule like that.

 

4) You do realize that you went two different directions in your last paragraph, correct? First, you said that warranted thievery is O.K. in situations marked defensive. Yet, your last line then states that that "thievery is never necessary". If you meant unwarranted thievery is never necessary, then you should have made it more clear because by the end of your paragraph it seems like you don't know what you're saying. Your definition of thievery is one-side and narrow-minded. Thievery covers a broad spectrum of things, as I outlined in my first paragraph. Theft of life, theft of property, theft of love, etc. all fall under thievery. Initiating theft is wrong, if it is unwarranted, but there are some situations where theft is O.K. So, we actually agree on this point, to some degree.

 

5) Last but not least, stop being such a zealous @$$hole about your opinions. I never once insulted your ideas nor did I say they were idiotic or stupid. Yet, you ripped through my post as if I had. You are in the minority on this board in your beliefs. You are coming off as tyrannical. Just because most of the board disagrees with you doesn't mean you have to insult others opinions. I did not insult your opinions, and if you would like people to take you seriously then I would suggest doing the same

 

Discussing this with you is like trying to have a discussion with the WBC, ergo I will not be continuing to do so.

1. There's never been a successful government. If there has, name one and why does it not still exist? Sure, some have been successful in relation to others, but in terms of the success you seek as proof from anarchy, there's been none!!

 

2, 3, 4. Yes, I agree with you. However, "theft" is always initiated and that is never warranted or ok. I see what you are saying about taking property (lives, objects, land) under certain circumstances which is why I called it a "defense tactic," which is not not theft at all, but rather retalitory violence or simply justice. There's a huge difference. Theft is never ok.

 

And if you're talking hypothetically, I would just say that I could hypothetically own a nuclear bomb and would blow all the pirates to hell if they attacked. The results and conclusions are still the same. In order to conquer people one needs wealth, resources, knowledge and legitimacy. When people are educated, markets are free and government ceases to exist, one person or group of people cannot and will not have all of those.

 

5. Sorry, if you took my post wrong or if I somehow sounded condescending. I am trying to answer as many posts as I can, and yes I realize I am the minority. If I snap, act a fool or am out of line, sorry. And please let me know.

 

P.S. Is it really an opinion that theft and violence are wrong?

[SOCALHUSKER]

It has nothing to do with imagination, SOCAL. I can imagine quite a bit. What I'm talking about isn't imaginary, though, it's real people acting the way real people act. You admit that people would have to "band together" to protect themselves or their community. Who organizes that? Who is in charge of that? Because if you really think people will just come together without any kind of organization and effectively stave off organized assault, you're back in a fantasy. And that organization is the nucleus of government. It is an act of governing.

 

Organization does not equate to government at all. If it's voluntary it is not government. Government is not voluntary.

 

And you keep stepping right into the mess. Next you say, "Do you really believe its "fantasy" to expect individuals to do things that most people already do to begin with? Or do you consider it simply impossible to hold people accountable for their actions?" We're not worried about "most people." We're worried about those few fringe people who can't live in a Utopia. Criminals make up a small percentage of our population, yet we still pay police to patrol our streets.

 

So, if your only worried about a few fringe people, as you say, "only a small percentage of our population," why do you find it necessary to steal from everyone to protect against them? Could those same few not be curtailed by businesses funded by voluntarily paying individuals? Also, who says "we" pay the police to patrol the streets? Last time I checked, that money was stolen from me without a choice? That's not payment, that's extortion. Who's protecting me from those criminals? Also, if protection is what you truly seek wouldn't you be better served relying on a business that solved reported crimes at rate above somewhat above 20%? If it's even that high these days.

 

You ask "Why is lack of government not possible" like it's a valid question. It's not. Every society in the history of man has had some form of heirarchy, some form of government. It's what humans do - they order their world. It's like asking, "Why is lack of home not possible?" Every human instinctively creates a home, whether that be a tent, a cave, a house, a stretch of sidewalk, or a palace. It's a basic human action. Failing to understand that makes me wonder if you're serious about this conversation at all.

 

This is what you seriously pass off as logic? And like I said in the other thread, there was a time when the world was thought to be flat, slavery was rampant, airplanes did not exist, and the internet was not created. Yet, that didn't make the opposite any less feasible.

[Husker_x]

Actually, yes I do represent anarchism, anarcho-capitalism, market-anarchism, voluntaryism, individual-anarchism, libertarianism or any other term that describes a philospohy in which individuals are left alone, without threat of theft or violence from a coercive monopoly, to volutarily make their own decisions and choices as long as they don't infringe upon other people, their property or their ability to do the same. Call it what you will, but it is a philosophy of "no rulers," and otherwise known as anarchy. Some so-called "anarchist" may be against property, property rights, or any other individual preference, but if they what they advocate includes initiating violence against others to achieve their ends, that simply means that they are confused, have contradictions in their philosophy, and are not really for a system without rulers, but instead a system in which they rule.

 

And as for your questions, I believe I have answered them numerous times, but here it goes:

 

1 & 2. Simply put, personal and property rights, which are one and the same, are established through self-ownership and homesteading. Self-ownership is based upon objectivenatural law/rightsand more specifically upon the birth of an individual. Since each person is born with the distinct ability to control their own body and mind it is logically deduced that each individual owns himself. Since an individual does own himself, and therefore by extension his labor and products of his labor, and only he alone can make choices and decisions for himself and his property; it is only the individual who has the right to decide, amongst other things, the labor he partakes in, what he puts in his body, what he exchanges and who he trades and associates with. Any infringement upon an individual's person, their rightfully gained property, or their ability to make a voluntary choice is a violation of their property rights.

 

As it is explained in Ch. 4 "Justice and Property Rights by Murray Rothbard, "Since the nature of man is such that each individual must use his mind to learn about himself and the world, to select values, and to choose ends and means in order to survive and flourish, the right to self-ownership gives each man the right to perform these vital activities without being hampered and restricted by coercive molestation."

 

The other means for establishing property rights is through homesteading. This simply means, "the absolute right in material property of the person who first finds an unused material resource and then in some way occupies or transforms that resource by the use of his personal energy."

 

As Locke states, "...every man has a property in his own person. This nobody has any right to but himself. The labour of his body and the work of his hands, we may say, are properly his. Whatsoever, then, he removes out of the state that nature hath provided and left it in, he hath mixed his labour with it, and joined to it something that is his own, and thereby makes it his property. It being by him removed from the common state nature placed it in, it hath by this labour something annexed to it that excludes the common right of other men."

 

So, because self-ownership and homesteading are the only objective, logical and moral means for establishing property rights, it is no wonder that in a system run by a coercive monopoly, one based upon subjective legislation, that neither property rights nor justice can or will ever be obtained.

 

3. Since property rights are the only objective rights, the only law in a free society would be that no individual, or group of people, can initiate physical force, the threat of force, or any substitute for force(fraud) against any other individual, group of people, or their property. This is a rule that is pretty much followed by nearly everyone anyways, the exceptions being government and a few irrational individuals, so this idea that you put forth, that much effort is required to gain compliance, enforce and administer punishment for it, is quite absurd. Compliance requires personal responsibility and consequences; enforcement requires that businesses freely compete for voluntary customers and profits to ensure that property rights are not violated and if they are that they are brought to justice; and punishment requires that businesses freely compete for voluntary customers and profits to ensure that property rights are restored fully.

 

Since individuals value their property, which once again nearly everyone does, it is guaranteed that individuals would be willing to take measures to either protect it themselves or would voluntarily pay someone else to protect it. Though I can't predict the future or know exactly what the market will look like, more than likely competing insurance companies would arise, which would allow individuals to pool there money for defense, uphold contracts, undertake investigations, settle disputes, cover losses until reparations were made, and ensure compliance with arbitration. The key here though, is that the everything is voluntary.

 

If you thought that you could defend yourself and your property and saw no need to pay someone else for his service, you simply would not pay. However, besides the lack of service, you could also mean risking the possibility that certain individuals would not do business with you. Or maybe that unless you were well off you would be short any money or property was lost until justice was served. Even worse, is the possiblity that if somebody violated you, you would then have to take matters into your own hands, ensuring that you did not violate anyone beyond what justice was, lest you be charged with a violation.

 

Obviously a demand for protection and justice, which you and countless others on this board have already shown, does exist. How it is doled out is simply up to the values and preferences of all the actors that make up the market. Since a free and voluntary market requires customer satisfaction (you may claim that it doesn't, however I have yet to see any logical explanation, short of a false dichotomy, to show how a business using theft or violence can exist in a free market) it is guaranteed that only the businesses that provides the best services at the best prices will succeed. If a business claims to dole out justice, yet they constantly infringe upon other individual's rights or provide less than stellar justice, how is it that they will keep gaining profits from unsatisfied customers? If they infringe upon other's rights they will find themselves being brought to justice by their competition, which is always looking for a leg up, and if they provide less than stellar justice they will find that nobody wants to do business with them and their competition will drive them out of business. Free people operating in free markets are the answer.

 

One of my favorite scenes in the recent John Adams miniseries put out by HBO was of Adams and Thomas Jefferson arguing over a topic similar to this. Jefferson maintained that maybe no generation should bind the next to any government. Adams balked at this and accused him of flirting with anarchy. Jefferson replied, "You show a troubling lack of faith in your fellow man." Adams answered, smiling wolfishly: "And you have a dangerous excess of it."

 

Because people routinely do disregard the personal and property rights of other people, your philosophy has something to contend with. All you have managed to do by quote-bombing John Locke is establish a philosophical principle, not a practical application. In effect you retreat to the clouds every time you're presented with a real-world example, declaring a 'false dichotomy'; and while you may imagine yourself parading around in imperial robes with the power to wilt arguments by divine edict, all you're really doing is ignoring the substance of the critique to your position. You say that criminals are at the fringes of society? The only societies you have to point to are governed ones. I have buckets of evidence, baskets of it, hordes of it, that demonstrates when either a government OR its ability to execute its laws fails for one reason or another, chaos and a sharp increase of property/personal infringement is almost always the following result. These are facts. Not philosophy. Deal with them or get off the stage.

 

To the Rothbard quote: 'Natural Law' (and I'll ignore the 'objective' part in order to avoid derailing the real issue) may give man a theoretical right to self-ownership without being molested, but not the ability. This is the entire argument in a word.

 

To say that a government ('coercive monopoly') can never establish property rights or achieve justice is a bald assertion for one and a fallacy of equivocation for two. Justice is achieved all the time in the United States. It does not mean justice is literally achieved every time, but in an imperfect world there can be no perfect justice. Your dependence on a free market to achieve it or even inch us closer is utopian at best and unsupported by actual evidence––not the whimsy of political theory––in reality.

 

On your response to my third question, I have to admit I facepalmed. "[The] only law in a free society would be that––" Stop! Read no further. You have no way of establishing any law, so what follows is useless. Your repeated appeal to Natural Law (that this basic tenant is pretty much followed by everyone) is astonishing when you read the history of the world––the violence, the cruelty, the torture, rape, and slaughter, and not even that which followed directly from governmental causes. It has happened for countless reasons political, religious, or even unmotivated. It can happen because of insult or perceived insult across generations or cultures. Right now, this very second, there is a significant population of religiously-motivated zealots sitting in the Middle East. Any one of them would strap a nuclear bomb to your child because they believe God wills it, not their government, if they even recognize one.

 

If you respond that a government is the cause of this, you're wrong. And if you respond that a government does nothing to prevent an atrocity from happening, you're wrong again. You claim that a free market would do just as good if not a better job of promoting safety and defense, but since you have no actual evidence to point to, no anarchist society anywhere at any time, you're obliged to explain to me how a free market would account for these basic societal needs. Then you admit you actually have no idea what the free market would look like. The defense rests, your honor.

 

Finally, I want you to stare long and hard at this sentence. "How [justice] is doled out is simply up to the values and preferences of all the actors that make up the market." Do you feel that creeping sense of unease when your eyes trace over it again and again? We have a term for what you wrote. It's called street justice, and its mother is Mobocracy, your preferred form of non-government. Because it might have paying customers doesn't change its nature. See, the justice system in the United States is more concerned with protecting the innocent than punishing the guilty, which is why you are considered innocent until proven guilty. What you might not know is that this is actually not as effective in stopping crime. If a man commits a murder and runs into a crowd you can either kill everyone in the crowd and stop the murderer or spare the innocent and let him get away. Our system lets him go. What if the whims of the financial mob decide they prefer a lower crime rate even at the expense of 'convicting'––assuming there's a trial at all––a few innocent people from time to time? Hey, it's the cost of doing business.

 

Yours is a worldview born out of naval gazing (philosophy), not evidence. You have no anarchist society anywhere to aid you in your cause; in fact, the evidence of anything even approaching it blunts your blade better than argument ever could. You also disregard human nature to arrive at your conclusions, and nearly the whole of history. Rhetoric and clever catchphrases comprise basically your entire point of view. And without even the slightest effort put into reasonably answering the hypothetical but reality-based flaws in anarcho-capitalism when it comes to justice and defense––I don't count the tautology of 'free market' as reasonable––you'll excuse us if we don't enthusiastically leap to your side.

[knapplc]

It has nothing to do with imagination, SOCAL. I can imagine quite a bit. What I'm talking about isn't imaginary, though, it's real people acting the way real people act. You admit that people would have to "band together" to protect themselves or their community. Who organizes that? Who is in charge of that? Because if you really think people will just come together without any kind of organization and effectively stave off organized assault, you're back in a fantasy. And that organization is the nucleus of government. It is an act of governing.

 

Organization does not equate to government at all. If it's voluntary it is not government. Government is not voluntary.

Of course organization equals government. In any society large enough to require a pooling of resources you need organization to properly utilize the workforce. Someone, or someones, is in charge of that organization. Hierarchies develop, which lead to authority being granted, and those endowed with authority govern their sphere. The more such organizations develop the more layers of authority are created, and the more authority is granted. Again - every human society ever has developed this way.

 

And you keep stepping right into the mess. Next you say, "Do you really believe its "fantasy" to expect individuals to do things that most people already do to begin with? Or do you consider it simply impossible to hold people accountable for their actions?" We're not worried about "most people." We're worried about those few fringe people who can't live in a Utopia. Criminals make up a small percentage of our population, yet we still pay police to patrol our streets.

 

So, if your only worried about a few fringe people, as you say, "only a small percentage of our population," why do you find it necessary to steal from everyone to protect against them? Could those same few not be curtailed by businesses funded by voluntarily paying individuals? Also, who says "we" pay the police to patrol the streets? Last time I checked, that money was stolen from me without a choice? That's not payment, that's extortion. Who's protecting me from those criminals? Also, if protection is what you truly seek wouldn't you be better served relying on a business that solved reported crimes at rate above somewhat above 20%? If it's even that high these days.

Once again we delve into the realms of fantasy. Who controls those businesses that you're giving this authority to? Who has oversight? The free market? You posit, apparently, that "bad" businesses who abuse their customers would go out of business? Why should they - they have guns. They have, to use your phrase, coercive power. They're not going out of business, they're taking your payment and that's all there is to it. If you don't like it, too bad. Pay up. There's no oversight without some form of governing body, and since you acknowledge avarice is an inherent human trait, abuse is inevitable. Without some oversight, which is inherently a governing body, you're going to exist at the whim of those who "protect" you.

 

You claim the taxes you pay to support the police are "stolen" from you. What a joke. You pay those taxes because there are a few very bad people out there who would destroy you without hesitation. You pay taxes because it's foolish to think you could exist in any form of safety without them. The police are a service you use; whether you realize it or not is irrelevant.

 

You ask "Why is lack of government not possible" like it's a valid question. It's not. Every society in the history of man has had some form of heirarchy, some form of government. It's what humans do - they order their world. It's like asking, "Why is lack of home not possible?" Every human instinctively creates a home, whether that be a tent, a cave, a house, a stretch of sidewalk, or a palace. It's a basic human action. Failing to understand that makes me wonder if you're serious about this conversation at all.

 

This is what you seriously pass off as logic? And like I said in the other thread, there was a time when the world was thought to be flat, slavery was rampant, airplanes did not exist, and the internet was not created. Yet, that didn't make the opposite any less feasible.

 

It is unimpeachable logic. It is as logical as love and avarice and procreation. It is the observed human behavior throughout time. Governance is as prevalent in every single human society as food and weapons. The illogical thing is to assert that humans would miraculously behave in a manner completely unobserved by humans, ever, and adhere to that assertion despite all evidence to the contrary.

[jnkyrdoff6]

-snippet-

 

 

5) Last but not least, stop being such a zealous @$$hole about your opinions. I never once insulted your ideas nor did I say they were idiotic or stupid. Yet, you ripped through my post as if I had. You are in the minority on this board in your beliefs. You are coming off as tyrannical. Just because most of the board disagrees with you doesn't mean you have to insult others opinions. I did not insult your opinions, and if you would like people to take you seriously then I would suggest doing the same

 

I can definitely see how some of the things SOCAL says can seem insulting, but you shouldn't take them that way. You have to try to look at things from his perspective. I remember last semester when one of my professors told me a program I had written looked like “I was stomping all over my d*ck, and then asking where's my d*ck at?” I just laughed, but one of my friends who was there at the time thought I'd be insulted, I guess. When you look at it from his perspective though, it's really difficult to read someone's else's code. He was just picking something small out and expressing his frustration over it. I know you probably don't know where I'm coming from here because you probably don't have much or any experience writing source code, but what I'm trying to say, I guess, is that you've just got to have thicker skin than that.

 

I don't know if I have an upper hand there because I grew up with a dad who never complimented me and only insulted me or what, but it's the truth. I mean, when I was more immature than I am now, I really hated my dad, but I feel like I've grown some since, and I've tried to understand his point of view. We have a good relationship now. I guess at some point you and I just have had different experiences, but when I read that kind of thing from SOCAL, I just laugh.

 

I suppose another thing I'm trying to get across is that there's too much misunderstanding in this world. I don't want to come off sounding like a bleeding heart, but life is just too short to walk around carrying a grudge the whole time. You should always try to understand where the other side is coming from not only because of some grander idea of less conflict in the world, but because it'll make you a much happier person. If you walk around with an axe to grind your whole life you end up cutting your own head off, or better yet, if you carry a grudge your whole life, you eventually collapse under its weight.

[walksalone]

 

I don't think anybody is arguing that it could happen here and now, but rather that it is moral, just, efficent and non-contradictory; and when a majority of individuals are educated enough to accept responsibility for their actions it will be that way. The evolution of man is slowly but surely moving that direction and at the accelerated rate that government is completely f@cking everything up, that time will come sooner rather than later. You are correct that sh@t would hit the fan if government dissolved today, but I'd attribute that more to dependancy upon government, which breeds irresponsibility and further dependancy, rather than merely on individual greed or sheer idiocy.

 

Dependency? You're giving folks too much credit. Isn't their dependency based on lack of knowledge, and their unwillingness to learn? Most people are too wrapped up just being fat, dumb, and happy.

 

Also, anarchy does not imply that individuals cannot voluntarily keep paying a protector such as government, though it wouldn't necessarily be a government if it was voluntary, but rather that those individuals who do not want to pay, or would rather pay someone else, be allowed to make that choice voluntarily. And to Husker X, anarchy is not simply the absence of government, as you describe in your scenario of Montreal, but the absence of rulers. There's a difference between the chaos and violence stemming from government, the effects of the dissolution of that intervention and the spontaneous order of anarchy that arises when individuals are allowed to make their own choices and are held accountable for them.

 

Once again, giving folks way too much credit. Not too mention that chaos and violence is a given, without any command and control. Once people start making their own choices, is when the problem begins. Too many people make choices, and don't believe that they need to be held accountable for them.

 

 

BTW, what makes you think that folks would wipe themselves out? How much protection do you and your neighbors need on a daily basis? How many murderers, rapist, and other violent scum do you personally know? When's the last time you were assaulted, robbed, or theatened by someone other than those wearing a badge? And that's not to say that it doesn't happen, but the chances are unlikely. Most people, even some on this board, will tell you that it's not the majority of people they are worried about, but just those few who do and will act irrational. How much protection from those type of people do you need and is that protection provided by law enforcement and military defense? How much do you currently pay for that protection? Do you know what the success rate is for the protection and defense of private property or the solving rate for violations? Could the cost and success rate be tied to the fact that a coercive monopoly cannot measure profit and loss and therefore cannot know whether or not they are providing a good or bad service? Is it ok, moral or just to steal money from an individual in order to pay for defense because you subjectively believe that you need more protection?

 

I live in Paterson, New Jersey. I'm in the process of purchasing a Bushmaster Superlight Carbine. At the bottom of my block, there's a crack house. Across I-80, every night there are drug deals, robberies, home invasions, assaults, armed robberies, and at least a homicide a week. Would I feel much better being able to point a rifle at someone in my house illegally, that may be carrying a pistol, hell f*ck yea. I like my odds.

 

It's not the fact that I "personally" know rapists, murders, etc. Asking that question is asinine. And the law around here, isn't very effective. Most of them are on the "take".

 

I'm hoping they keep wiping themselves out.

 

 

I'm sorry I don't have nifty diagrams or pie charts to support long winded explanations, that end up sounding more like sh*t and shinola....

[SOCALHUSKER]

One of my favorite scenes in the recent John Adams miniseries put out by HBO was of Adams and Thomas Jefferson arguing over a topic similar to this. Jefferson maintained that maybe no generation should bind the next to any government. Adams balked at this and accused him of flirting with anarchy. Jefferson replied, "You show a troubling lack of faith in your fellow man." Adams answered, smiling wolfishly: "And you have a dangerous excess of it."

Which then begs the question, if men are so evil that they cannot be trusted to govern themselves, how then can those same people be trusted to govern others? Please answer this simple question, the one which you and every other government supporter seemingly always seek to ignore. For you can rave all you want about the separation of powers, the will of the people, being tied to a Constitution, or any other excuse for the implementation of a coercive monopoly, but the simple fact remains that all excuses still come down to the basic fact that you, and every other supporter of government, believe it's ok to initiate theft and violence against innocent people to achieve your subjective opinions and ends.

 

Because people routinely do disregard the personal and property rights of other people, your philosophy has something to contend with. All you have managed to do by quote-bombing John Locke is establish a philosophical principle, not a practical application. In effect you retreat to the clouds every time you're presented with a real-world example, declaring a 'false dichotomy'; and while you may imagine yourself parading around in imperial robes with the power to wilt arguments by divine edict, all you're really doing is ignoring the substance of the critique to your position. You say that criminals are at the fringes of society? The only societies you have to point to are governed ones. I have buckets of evidence, baskets of it, hordes of it, that demonstrates when either a government OR its ability to execute its laws fails for one reason or another, chaos and a sharp increase of property/personal infringement is almost always the following result. These are facts. Not philosophy. Deal with them or get off the stage.

How are property rights and natural law not a practical, let alone real-world, application? Are you implying that natural law/rights do not exist? Can a person live without making a decision? Can a person live if they are killed? Are you actually implying that man-made legislation, that which is not founded upon natural law, is somehow not subjective?

 

And you say that I retreat to the clouds and avoid answers, but rather isn't it that your questions are made without the reality-based option of alternatives and in an essence never leave lala land to begin with. Your scenarios are so far-fetched and impossible that to answer them would be foolish and a waste of time. Do you have the ability to answer all the questions for the billions that arise in society? Hell, can you even provide an answer for the scenario that you submit, I think not. However, this hardly proves that a solution is impossible, unrealistic or that someone somewhere doesn't have the answer.

 

Since you and knapp have kindly pointed out that government rule has always existed, to which I, and others disagree, how then can you continue to hold the opinion, and pass it off as an objective reality, that in the absence of rulers, notice I did not say rules, that chaos and violence would ensue? For even if we are wrong, how can you possibly prove something, if you believe it has not existed? In fact, every single shred of "proof" that you claim to have provided is not the result of anarchy at all, but merely consequences of government failure. You even say yourself, "when either a government OR its ability to execute its laws fails for one reason or another, chaos and a sharp increase of property/personal infringement is almost always the following result." So, how can anarchy be blamed for the consequences of a government failing to execute it's OWN laws? That's akin to me losing control of my own mind; committing murder, theft or any other act of violence and blaming you. How ridiculous is that?

 

To the Rothbard quote: 'Natural Law' (and I'll ignore the 'objective' part in order to avoid derailing the real issue) may give man a theoretical right to self-ownership without being molested, but not the ability. This is the entire argument in a word.

 

To say that a government ('coercive monopoly') can never establish property rights or achieve justice is a bald assertion for one and a fallacy of equivocation for two. Justice is achieved all the time in the United States. It does not mean justice is literally achieved every time, but in an imperfect world there can be no perfect justice. Your dependence on a free market to achieve it or even inch us closer is utopian at best and unsupported by actual evidence––not the whimsy of political theory––in reality.

The more simple question, which is really the entire argument and another that you simply refuse to answer, is how can government establish property rights if in order to exist it must violate them? Sure, a certain amount of subjective justice can be achieved, but when one actually looks at the justice system completely naked and realizes that it is founded upon injustice, how can you ever say that my claim is a bald assertion and a fallacy?

 

On your response to my third question, I have to admit I facepalmed. "[The] only law in a free society would be that––" Stop! Read no further. You have no way of establishing any law, so what follows is useless. Your repeated appeal to Natural Law (that this basic tenant is pretty much followed by everyone) is astonishing when you read the history of the world––the violence, the cruelty, the torture, rape, and slaughter, and not even that which followed directly from governmental causes. It has happened for countless reasons political, religious, or even unmotivated. It can happen because of insult or perceived insult across generations or cultures. Right now, this very second, there is a significant population of religiously-motivated zealots sitting in the Middle East. Any one of them would strap a nuclear bomb to your child because they believe God wills it, not their government, if they even recognize one.

 

Once again natural law establishes it. To say that it doesn't, and to insinuate that your subjective opinion of history is some kind of objective reality is both asinine and false. Sure, people murder, rape and steal but that neither makes it right nor does it mean that society accepts it as ok. Do you really believe that humanity could exist if humans were allowed to murder each other without repercussion? Exactly!!

 

If you respond that a government is the cause of this, you're wrong. And if you respond that a government does nothing to prevent an atrocity from happening, you're wrong again. You claim that a free market would do just as good if not a better job of promoting safety and defense, but since you have no actual evidence to point to, no anarchist society anywhere at any time, you're obliged to explain to me how a free market would account for these basic societal needs. Then you admit you actually have no idea what the free market would look like. The defense rests, your honor.

 

You're right, government does not cause individuals to act irrational, but what it does is give the irrational people a tool of power and legitimacy to enforce and enact their subjective irrationality upon the rest of humanity. And are you really going to argue that the free market is not more efficient, more fair, more productive or more moral than an entity that survives on theft and violence alone? Do I even need to provide examples of the free market vs. government? If so, it's no wonder you that you advocate stealing from the productive and then act as if it's the work of an honest man.

 

Finally, I want you to stare long and hard at this sentence. "How [justice] is doled out is simply up to the values and preferences of all the actors that make up the market." Do you feel that creeping sense of unease when your eyes trace over it again and again? We have a term for what you wrote. It's called street justice, and its mother is Mobocracy, your preferred form of non-government. Because it might have paying customers doesn't change its nature. See, the justice system in the United States is more concerned with protecting the innocent than punishing the guilty, which is why you are considered innocent until proven guilty. What you might not know is that this is actually not as effective in stopping crime. If a man commits a murder and runs into a crowd you can either kill everyone in the crowd and stop the murderer or spare the innocent and let him get away. Our system lets him go. What if the whims of the financial mob decide they prefer a lower crime rate even at the expense of 'convicting'––assuming there's a trial at all––a few innocent people from time to time? Hey, it's the cost of doing business.

Here you go with your bullsh@t scenarios again. Because somehow all the people who voluntarily pay the financial mob individuals are going to keep forking over money, knowledge and resources as they get stabbed in the back? You really need to study basic free market economics; a little supply and demand, profit and loss and see how far a free market business makes it by increasing competition and driving away customers. And actually, now that you mention street justice and mob rule, isn't what you support more along those lines? A republican/representative/democratically elected government is in fact nothing more than rule by the tyranny of the majority. Somebody is always in the minority and someone is always getting screwed. And instead of putting more time, effort, and money into productive measures that DO benefit society, individuals are forced to comply with a lose/lose game in which everyone attempts to seek power so that they don't end up on the short end of the stick. Just because it's done by a vote, cast by a representative and supposedly bound to a piece of paper doesn't make it any different. Call it what you want, but theft is theft and rule by the majority is still mob rule. You claim that the justice system is created to protect the innocent, but since when? When has it protected innocent people who have money stolen from them everyday? Sure, it may protect a few people from random violence, but how can a system that relies solely on theft and violence ever claim to perpetuate civility, protect the innocent, or anything that closely resembles justice?

 

Yours is a worldview born out of naval gazing (philosophy), not evidence. You have no anarchist society anywhere to aid you in your cause; in fact, the evidence of anything even approaching it blunts your blade better than argument ever could. You also disregard human nature to arrive at your conclusions, and nearly the whole of history. Rhetoric and clever catchphrases comprise basically your entire point of view. And without even the slightest effort put into reasonably answering the hypothetical but reality-based flaws in anarcho-capitalism when it comes to justice and defense––I don't count the tautology of 'free market' as reasonable––you'll excuse us if we don't enthusiastically leap to your side.

Sorry, but it's not the "we" that I care about. Only individuals can choose whether or not they can make decisions and live their own life. Obviously you cannot. And though none of these were blessed with the technology or foresight of today, there are still a few examples of anarchist societies that fared reasonably well.

[SOCALHUSKER]

For you statists.Maybe you can answer a few of the question brought forth?

 

Upon encountering the claim that some non-statist doctrine (e.g., anarcho-capitalism) is practically unsafe due to its radical character, it is worthwhile to point to the glaring radicalism of every form of statism. Having thus suggested, however, that it is not radicalism per se that is a problem with any given socio-economic doctrine, it is even more worthwhile to underscore that statism is not simply radical, but radical in its incoherence. It seems a very fitting description for the theory that claims, among others:

 

1. That the only sure way of protecting oneself against violence, aggression and coercion is to help institute and continually support a vast, monopolistic apparatus of institutionalized violence, aggression and coercion.

 

2. That the only sure way of protecting one’s private property rights is to help institute and continually support a coercive entity whose representatives do not own any of the said entity’s assets, and yet arrogate to themselves the right to expropriate any private property owner for the purposes whose utility it is up to them to appraise.

 

3. That the free market economy, whose participants – in order to prosper – have to supply one another with productive goods and services, as well as bear the full financial responsibility for the potential failures of their actions, can survive only when subjected to the regulation of a monopolistic group of non-producers, who can always shift the costs of their failures onto the shoulders of producers.

 

4. That statist coercion is necessary to enforce contracts, and yet the alleged “social contract” that is supposed to establish the state needs no meta-state to enforce it, thus effectively becoming a self-enforcing anomaly.

 

5. That the wielders of any given monopolistic apparatus of compulsion and aggression use it out of altruistic motives, but if they were to stop using coercive methods (political activity) and instead turn to voluntary methods (market activity), their altruism would be immediately supplanted by base, greed-driven egoism.

 

6. That states, institutions responsible for some 200 million cruel deaths in the 20th Century alone, are supposed to offer protection from “private criminals,” who even in their most organized form of international mafia networks never managed to take even the tiniest fraction of the statist death toll.

 

7. That the state of anarchy among individuals, each of which can generally finance his activities out of his private pocket only, would lead to an intolerable escalation of violence and bloodshed, but the state of anarchy among states, each of which can impose the costs of its activities (including warfare) on private individuals, is at least a tolerable and relatively peaceful arrangement.

 

8. That the lack of an external, monopolistic enforcer of agreements among individuals would lead to endless conflict, but the lack of an external, monopolistic enforcer of agreements among various organs of the state does not prevent them from cooperating effectively and even benevolently.

 

9. That ceding the task of maintaining justice onto an entity that is both monopolistic and coercive will not lead to it continually perverting justice in its favor.

 

10. That the notion of checks and balances whereby the rulers control the ruled and the ruled control the rulers does not violate the principle of Occam’s razor, suggestive of the vision in which a single group of self-ruling individuals keeps itself in peaceful balance just fine.

 

11. That the ruled are wise enough to choose their rulers, but not wise enough to choose the way to use their own money.

 

12. That a pair of travelers bumping into each other in the middle of a desolate forest do not immediately get at each other’s throats only because they fear being punished by the state.

 

13. That an institution which forcibly imposes its protective services on others, unilaterally determines their price and excludes all competition in this area will not attempt to benefit from initiating conflicts or letting them develop rather them resolving them or preventing their occurrence.

 

14. That compulsory expropriation of an individual’s private property need not be considered as a violation of anyone’s rights (given unilaterally determined “due monetary compensation”), but refusing to give up a portion of one’s independently created or contractually acquired belongings is a straightforward violation.

 

15. That political rights precede property rights, which presumably means that the supposed original social contract was concluded by a bonfire in a cave and written down on the cave wall, or else the conditions of the pre-contract world allowed for creating the capital necessary to (at least) house the social contractors and provide them with ink and paper in some mysterious, propertyless way.

 

16. That having a sufficiently large clientele turns what is normally considered a robbery into what is commonly accepted as part of a necessary social service.

 

17. That a relatively small group of people is capable of possessing more knowledge and making more informed decisions with regard to directing the activities of any given society than the whole rest of the society in question.

 

18. That the notion of equality before the law leaves place for functional privileges.

 

19. That unconditional respect for the principle of non-aggression is “absolutist,” but unconditional respect for state-legislated law is not.

 

20.That the prevalence of statism indicates the advantageousness of statism, as if the same could not be once said about astrology, witch-hunting, slavery and legal racial discrimination.

 

21. That each of the above assertions is solidly justified, both theoretically and empirically, while the negation of any of them lies essentially beyond the pale of reasonable discussion.

 

Having enumerated these (or other) reasons, it is worthwhile to confront the statist with the task of defending the allegedly moderate character of the doctrine he espouses. And even if he bites the bullet on this one and acknowledges statism’s radicalism, one should unhesitatingly confront him with another, equally difficult task – that of defending statism’s putative coherence. If he admits failure on this score as well, we should not be intellectually surprised, but we might at least feel tactically satisfied.